Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khan-Sharif Controversy[edit]

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

Poorly written article without clear intent, the notion of a "controversy" is highly subjective, as it the use of the word "blames". Furthermore, I am unsure whether or not the Khan-Sharif relationship merits a separate article. I would perhaps welcome an addition regarding possible coalition possibilities to the Pakistan 11 may elections article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2013 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwakigavli1234 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2013‎ (UTC) — Wikiwakigavli1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:V. Zia Khan 01:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR, article title is not appropriate as per WP:CRITERIA. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable enough to have an article of its own. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Fujiang[edit]

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

This article has no independent sources and nothing that shows this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. It reads more like a tribute and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Mdtemp (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There had been several additions made to this page, also citing and linking to various sources. Further read the edit made to the conversation ('talk') on Zhao Fuajing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see significant coverage by independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included many links to independent sources at the bottom of the article. These include both memoirs of the man by different people, as well as articles written by him and by others about him and his work. As I have mentioned in the 'Talk' section of Zhao Fujiang's page, all of the available sources are in Chinese (you can aid yourself with Google Translate if you cannot read them, to get a general sense of things). These sources also vary by years. All of the information available on Zhao Fujiang's page is mentioned several times on those articles I've included links to.

As of now, this Wikipedia entry is the first major source for information about this teacher in English. This does not take away from his great contribution to the general community of Chinese martial arts practitioners - both in China and elsewhere in the world. One has to understand that because of the Cultural Revolution and the conservative attitude of the Chinese Communist Party, it took a lot of time for the information about notable martial arts masters from China to arrive in the West. This article is part of an overall effort by many martial arts teachers to bring forth more information and knowledge of those teachers whose lifetime contributions to the martial arts communities were significant. The lineage chart which I have included on the page (and also on Xingyiquan), in which master Zhao is evidently present, is also a part of that effort.

Zhao Fujiang had been, in his day, as influential as teachers like Yip Man. The reason the latter became more famous was because he happened to have one student whose name was Bruce Lee, which in turn brought him fame via alternative means and pushed for the making of several films of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see this is Mr. Bluestein's article of primary interest, but the lack of independent sources does seem problematic and is a frequent problem with martial arts articles. Based on the article's sources and my own search, I don't see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:MANOTE. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, which is why lineage charts are irrelevant. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should never be the "first major source for information" as stated by the defender above. There should always be reliable, secondary sources to back up any Wikipedia article. The external links (note: not references or inline citations) largely fail WP:RS as they consist of YouTube links, blog and forum postings. I'm unable to find any significant (English language) coverage of the subject and thus, IMO, fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks. I understand your concerns, but I find this line of logic problematic. There are an endless amount of materials that relate to Chinese and Japanese cultures which have nothing written on them in English. Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia. Surely, as stated, one would want it to be able to base stuff on sources written in its native language. However, consider the following: When someone does research on a subject that has not been researched before, which relates to a foreign culture, one needs to first know that this subject exists! The way I see it, it is partly the role of Wikipedia (to a lesser extent of course) to enable people to become exposed to subjects and people they could not have otherwise be reading of. Do you understand the innate paradox which I am pointing to here?...

Consider for instance the page on Piguaquan. The traditional version of this art is probably not practiced by more than a few hundred people nowadays (though the Modern Wushu version is very common). Up until last year, when I wrote the first extensive article in the English language on this art, one could barely find ANY info on it in English (I am myself a practitioner of that art). But now, through this page, people know much more about this art, and this would help many to further their research. I have even taken the time to write a more extensive page on the art on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia...

The culture and community of traditional martial arts is a lively and interactive mesh of people, ideas and traditions. For many thousands of years, an endless amount of such traditions have been lost because people were bent on notions of secrecy and withdrawing knowledge from others. We now live in a different era. We now recognize in this community, that the arts and their traditions can only survive if we openly share information, in the broadest sense possible.

The legacy of a martial arts master goes beyond the scope of the factual details of his life. There is a lot of value and importance to the understanding of what and which were his roots, and what were the fruits of his labour and teachings.

The latter two arguments are what had led me to create the extensive Xing Yi Quan lineage-chart, which I had originally included on Xingyiquan, and later also on Zhao Fujiang's page. These things were not created and written down in order to glorify anyone's name or sell any sort of product - they exists so a myriad of important traditions could be preserved. I gather that it is difficult for someone who has not studied in-depth, in a traditional manner, one of the arts practiced by Zhao Fujiang, to understand this importance and significance I write of. Such matters relate to a very rich culture that is not well known to the general public, or even to avid martial artists who do not practice the traditional Chinese martial arts. But I nonetheless make a plea to your common sense - consider what I have suggested, for these are not empty words, and the grand endeavor of preserving the culture of traditional martial arts is solely for the benefit of future practitioners of these arts.

That said, I will see to try to make for more accurate references within the article itself, in the hope that this will suffice.

Jonathan.bluestein (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources and doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE, either. Perhaps the article can be saved off to the author's pages for further sourcing. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There's only one source currently on the article that could be considered reliable and that's the documentary/youtube link. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it could potentially be a good source. The rest of the sources are not from reliable sources. However, one source doesn't make for significant coverage per WP:GNG. Transcendence (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamane A Boyd Jr[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I did some research, and it appears that the statistics are fake, because they haven't been recorded anywhere. Another user tried a PROD, but for some reason, it was reverted and the user warned. I think the user was right in tagging the page for proposed deletion. Besides, I haven't found any significant coverage on this person, and he doesn't appear to have played in a professional league, so he fails WP:ATHLETE even if the article isn't a hoax. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My bad for reverting. Some quick research confirms Lugia2453 is correct. FrostedΔ14 22:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His wiki profile picture is photoshopped. Sayjune (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some information on him at recruiting web sites, but nothing of the type required to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was originally declined at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamane Boyd Jr. The creator then went ahead and moved into mainspace anyway. The creator is called "NFLProspect2014" and has never made an edit outside of this article. Could NFLProspect2014 be Mr. Boyd? Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an almost complete absence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, let alone in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. No specific notability guidelines are applicable per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in references, does not meet WP:NSPORTS and does not achieve notability through WP:GNG nor through any other guideline that I can find. Unable to confirm if it is a hoax at this time, but the image has a portion of the NFL logo in the background and I don't think that meets the standards we seek either. I can find no reason to retain this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I suspect this is not a hoax, but playing in a minor development league simply doesn't attract coverage. Even what appears to be their web site (on homestead.com) doesn't list an actual player to provide verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Choi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage and WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks non-routine coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Lepont[edit]

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

MMA fighter with the usual routine sports coverage and no top tier fights--so he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short of WP:NMMA. Article seems to be fishing for WP:INHERIT. Perhaps someone can find coverage in East Asian languages. For now, fails.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OneFC is not a top tier mma organization (see WP:MMATIER) so he does fail WP:NMMA. Coverage of him is routine. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Ng (fighter)[edit]

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

Fighter with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. The only significant coverage is an interview at bloodyelbow.com and I don't know if that is considered a reliable source. Otherwise all I'm seeing are the usual links to fight results, sherdog, and blogs. That's not enough to show me he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't believe his coverage meets WP:GNG either. Astudent0 (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Engberg[edit]

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

He's an MMA fighter with no top tier fights and the only sources are to organizational web sites or other routine coverage. The lack of significant coverage means he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a failry established MMA fighter with a couple of significant matches behind him.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite some policy reason he is notable, not just WP:ILIKEIT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, he has been in a couple of significanat matches which proves he is in the world elite of his sport. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like WP:NOTINHERITED. Since he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA, the kickboxer criteria at WP:KICK, and lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG, in what field are you claiming he's shown notability? Astudent0 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks non-routine coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-routine? This person is dedicated to his sport he doesnt have time to "play around on the social scene" like his American counter-parts.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't understand what significant independent coverage means. It means that people working for reliable sources with no ties to him have to be writing about him, and not just routine sports coverage. It has nothing to do with what he writes or what's on youtube, twitter, or facebook. Astudent0 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless more sourcing can be found for his kickboxing career that would warrant keeping him on WP:GNG grounds. Luchuslu (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MMANOT and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Courcelles 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saji Ur Rahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG He got caught, he got released, not much of a biography Darkness Shines (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge To List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. As a standalone bio, this is a WP:BLP1E at best, and the article seems almost entirely sourced to a single reporter (almost feels like an ad for this Tom Lasseter fellow), so there's no possible claim to significant coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wishy washy. I don't know, I'm kind of torn between delete and redirect/merge. Are these sources worthy of keeping? I'd like to see input from more editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable under general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any potential notability is for a single event (being arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay), so this fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we should keep all of the gitmo prisoners, and awe have no been doing so, but I think we do when there are exception circumstances or exceptional coverage. This is not 1E. If someone is arrested and sent to a routine prison, it might be, but being sent to this particular place is highly unusual, and amounts to a separate event. It seems clear to me there will be continuing interest--I think some of our deletions will end up looking remarkably silly, because stories like his are the sort of thing that makes people being considered martyrs. (Don't confuse this with amy personal judgment of who ought to be regarded as a martyr--some horrible people have been so regarded by their supporters.)
Redirect and merge To List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. This article fails WP:BLP1E.— -dainomite 09:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E & WP:VICTIM Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom~~, what the hell is this. He's a criminal who was foiled in a matter of seconds. I once flushed a tennis ball down the toilet in the locker room bathrooms at my high school, can I have a Wikipedia article too? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mezzo,are you really equating the importance of the events.? Does what he was trying to do seem that unimportant to you? No newspaper is going to cover your lost tennis ball, and apart from the intrinsic importance of the vents, that question of coverage is the basis of our usual guideline. this is perhaps the most over-extended false analogy I can remember being proposed here to denigrate the importance of a subject. The man was intent on a religiously motivated murder, and how long it took to catch him does not seem relevant. I'm commenting on the reasoning, not saying keep/delete, for of course it is the case that not all religiously motivated attempts to murder are notable , and I need to think about the coverage of this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the comment above is entirely inappropriate for an AfD based on uncivil language, poor argumentation, and lack of policy discussion. Please keep in mind the context -- this is not a locker room -- and be mindful of other audiences. Crtew (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have one word to describe the analogy by MezzoMezzo, Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use a policy based argument because it was an article with only two sources, prior to CTew's edits, it honestly did seem that ridiculous to me. I can withdraw my push for deletion per the latest edits to the article, but I'm not sure of "what the hell" really is a breahc of uncivil language; lately, I've noticed the F-word thrown around on multiple AfD discussions, in every instance there were no repercussions. I'm not defending that, I'm just making the point that I feel "what the hell" is rather tame compared to a lot of what I've seen lately. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that wasn't really the problem, but the nature of the comparison in your analogy DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep - per coverage of this "non notable criminal". seem to pass GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the coverage is where exactly? three hitrs og GNews Zero hits on GBooks other than Wikipedia ripoffs. And a general search brings up only 33,900 hits, I am not going to look at how many are RS, but I am willing to bet that those that are only mention the one thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an stand-alone article this would clearly fall under WP:NOTNEWS. In the context with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy it shows one of the supranational results of the controversy. Per WP:GNG. The press coverage of the controversy was way more intense in Europe then in the US. --Ben Ben (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This person passes WP:SIGCOV and was widely reported in Germany and Pakistan, as well as by the BBC and Al-Jazeera. The nominator had made several gross errors in submitting this to AfD. First, a BLP1E applies only to living persons, which is what the "LP" stands for. Second, he later asserts that he can't find any sources for the subject. That's true if you search by the whole name, but if you search for "Cheema" and "suicide" or other terms, then you will find many more reliable sources (or RS articles). As for WP:Victim, this is for a normal crime, but when you have a situation that is controversial and international relations comes into play, then it's not as relevant. Moreoever, I agree with others above that his death was part of the larger ramifications of the publication of the cartoons and is a good example of how Germany was affected. Moreover, the attack on a journalist makes this an important issue for WikiProject Journalism. Crtew (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Fresh Content: I added some other references to the sources. Crtew (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation[edit]

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

Non notable organization, no real news/web/book citations. See also Alan Curtis (criminologist) which I have also nominated for deletion Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Kerner Commission. Note that there's a separate, unrelated Eisenhower Foundation located at [1]. After taking out the results for that one, there aren't really any sources dedicated to the subject, but it is brought up a lot in relation to the Kerner Commission [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Back in 2007 I stubbified the article to remove copyvio. I urge taking a look at the previous version to see what else could be said, if someone were willing to write it properly. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just clicking on the Gnews link reveals enough coverage of their activities to qualify under WP:ORG. That said, since a lot of it seems to be grant-giving and the like, I dunno how good an article we can get. It may stay a decent semi-permastub, which is not really a problem. Ray^Talk 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not a famous, but a notable, commission. There are plenty of available sources that could be added to the article to bring it up to 'start' status. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Curtis (criminologist)[edit]

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

Biography article, makes some interesting claims that could indicate notability, but I cannot find 3rd party sources for the guy. Everything could be inflated resume fluff.

No newspapers etc. A few in passing cites in other works, so he might pass WP:SCHOLAR, but I think its iffy.

All refs/links are to the guys own website. Lots of anon IP edits, which I would guess are probably COI editors (if not the subject himself).

Also previously had major WP:COATRACK advertising the company he founded, and contained major copy-vio from their marketing speak.

The remainder of the article reads like it should be copy-vio from the "about us" page from somewhere, but I am unable to find it if so.

Tons of OR/SPS/PEACOCK.

See also related article AFD at Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation for this guys org.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to the foundation's article if it's kept. The best I can see online is this mention — Frankie (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It would also be possible to Revert to the NPOV version I rewrote from the original copy entry in 2007 (cleaned up a little & updated) . What was originally submitted was a promotional copyvio--the current version doesn't have the copyvio , but restored the promotion. It is extremely discouraging when I rescue something and it gets turned right back to junk again. At that point I usually give up on it. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DGG. If there's nothing left when you excise the promotion, best to be done with it. I don't know that a redirect is warranted, either - the (criminologist) addendum doesn't make for a really useful search term, and there are precisely two non-redirect links from the Article space to this title, making it easily fixed. Not worthwhile. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a copy-paste move of User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band) - and it's not ready for primetime yet, plus should not be moved out of the user's sandbox until they're ready (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ducktails (band)[edit]

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

Meh, I don't know if this is quite CSD material. Doesn't seem that notable, though. Does a blurb in Rolling Stone confer notability? Ignatz mice•talk 18:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hang on a tick—going through the author's contribs I found User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band), which was deleted, recreated, and userfied. This page is a copy of the userfied one, so I've tagged it for CSD A10. I'll see what ends up happening. Ignatz mice•talk 18:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just going by the current refs we have Rolling Stone, The Guardian, SPIN, and AMG [10], (Pitchfork too, but I cannot see those at the moment), all with enough content about the subject and their albums to meet notability, and by the treatment they provide I imagine there must be more out there — Frankie (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So some of the bare refs need cleanup, but this more than passes NMUSIC based on the refs already included in the article. The coverage from Pitchfork alone is sufficient. czar · · 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OVPsim[edit]

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

no assertion of notability - no indi 2ndary source fails WP:GNG and quick check didn't find any. SPAM / COI / SPA editor(s) Widefox; talk 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add some further references and external links to illustrate the use of OVPsim away from OVP/Imperas contributors. Please provide feedback on further changes that should be made to allow this contribution to remain. Thanks Duncgrah (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's 3 non-independent external links (the ARM link by partners i.e. OVP/Imperas), and a wiki. None of those count as WP:RS for notability. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete In an effort to prevent this from being open for all eternity. - I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG, I have looked around a search engine and sources certainly are not substantial and it's debatable whether any thing that could meet WP:RS has been provided, I certainly couldn't find anything obviously so via an internet search. However there is some usage of the term in the Google Scholar results, but this seems to be more about inclusion of the concept in the work rather than the work being about the concept which in it's seemingly early stage in life has yet to progress beyond an acronym of convenience to a term in common usage in it's own right much as those such as LAMP or PHP have done. --wintonian ^talk 02:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suggest userify to aid closing this: as compromise so that 2ndary sources can be added satisfying WP:GNG (and submitted to new article creation). Duncgrah - would you want this moved to your page, and Wintonian does that sounds good with you? If so we can close. Widefox; talk 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea should have thought of that myself. The other option of course is to merge into and create a section in an appropriate article but I would like some issues like the seas-of-blue worked out before or during the process.The 3rd default option seem to be to keep in article space as no consensus, which in my opinion is a very poor 'we don't know what to do' one. It's not really my subject area so unfortunately there is no hope of me tidying it up. Even if we stretch things to their limits 1 weak delete is hardly consensus. --wintonian ^talk 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 1 weak delete + Duncgrah hasn't !voted or commented against GNG criteria of several substantial secondary independent sources. A third relisting may bring another opinion in, especially with the less drastic userify option. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, as the title has already been properly redirected to Bipolar disorder. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar spectrum[edit]

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

After being nominated for merging nearly three years ago, I finally merged it into Bipolar Disorder. johncheverly 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you're completing a merge, the page should become a redirect to the new location, not deleted, no? AfD is for proposed page deletions only. czar · · 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The merged page should always be replaced with a redirect, not deleted. Dricherby (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Why would it not be a redirect? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Pope (footballer)[edit]

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

The same reasons of the two previous afd's still apply. He has still not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has played in a fully-professional league - see the BBC match report from Saturday's game. It even says this in the article and is included in the infobox. Number 5 7 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep. Please note that WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news stories. This is certainly not routine as every editor has opined with the exception of the nominator and one other editor. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article is an OR and POV magnet attracting rapid changes without discussion. It belongs on Wikinews, not here. Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Nom. WP:NOTNEWS is quite clear: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. ... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." I would also note that the flurry of keep votes below are a direct result of me notifying all of the contributors to the page (some of whom only write about fast-breaking-events), and may not reflect the consensus of the larger community. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are using the "It's in the news, therefor it must be notable" argument, do any of you have any evidence that it has enduring notability? Notability is not temporary. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone arguing "It's in the news so it can't possibly be notable," please note that most notable events started out as news stories. We do not have to wait for some long period before creating an article, when some extraordinary event occurs.Perhaps you know of numerous other instances where multiple persons were held captive for a decade or so, then rescued, and those cases were non-notable? Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom -- would it be possible to change your "delete" header to "comment"? Per convention, noms don't both nominate and then !vote on their nomination, to avoid the appearance of double-!voting, which of course was not your intent. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Start with the first sentence of NOTNEWS "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. " This story has had significant press in Cleveland plus national/international coverage (AMW etc) for 10 years. Today it is all over the news worldwide. If you like Wikinews so much, go write there instead. So far everything added has been heavily sourced and well balanced. You can't delete because an article might have problems someday maybe. SNOW KEEP. Legacypac (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's an OR and PoV magnet (I hope people keep a very close eye on any BLP issues and the like), but it has received a vast amount of press coverage. As much as this is sensationalistic, every major news outlet in the world is covering it. Three women being held captive for a decade is undoubtably notable; this is not a common occurrence. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the relevance of the article. It has good sources and it is well written with the information provided so far. --Meluuu (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. May be revisited in a few months once things settle down. But for now, this is huge. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2001:db8. This has world wide coverage, and meets the notability guidelines. Just because it will attract POV and OR is not a reason to delete it.Martin451 (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There's always time to delete later. Be bold. GreaseballNYC (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOTNEWS. There's always time to add later. Be bolder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting global news coverage (I came here to see why it wasn't at least nominated for the ITN slot on the main page) and is clearly an encyclopaedic topic comparable to the Fritzl case - you don't keep three women alive and confined in a suburban home for 10 years while people are actively searching for them without there being long-term enduring coverage and media interest. As of right now I don't see any ORR and only one marked unsourced statement (that is not relevant to the notability). Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, major news even outside the US, many of these news sources are comparing it to the Fritzl case and the kidnapping of Natascha Kampusch. Donnie Park (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course there is current news coverage; it's currently a current event. But it doesn't take a WP:CRYSTALBALL to realize that a recovery of three kidnap victims from a decade ago is a story of lasting endurance and not mere news. This is akin to such "news" stories as Elizabeth Smart and Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. If deleted, it's just going to be recreated in a month when it's even more obvious that this is not merely a news event. The only thing deletion will accomplish is deprive Wikipedia readers of information of it for a month or so.

Lousy article title, though. TJRC (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the top story in today's news cycle does not mean that the incident should be deleted. Many notable events have started out as major breaking news stories. As an apparent incident of multiple victims being abducted separately, held for a decade or so, then rescued, it is not a run-of-the-mill abduction or sex crime. We do not have to wait weeks before creating an article about such an incident, which experience and common sense suggests has encyclopedic importance. If somehow the story turns out not to get coverage in the course of the investigation and any trials which take place, then we can delete it some months down the road. If people are putting inappropriate text into the article, then revert/warn/block as necessary and semi-protect the article or fully protect it. It does not make sense, and is not supported by policies or guidelines, to delete the article to prevent people from editing it inappropriately. Edison (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly beyong the realm of mere NEWS, and therefore NOTNEWS does not apply. Agree with the sentiment about the title though... Giant Snowman 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS does not say "ïf it's in the news WP can't cover it" Now the media is reporting multiple births and miscarriages (hope it is not true, but there was a Criminal Minds episode like this. Not run of the mill.^[1] Legacypac (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- are you people nuts?! Of course there should be an article on these people being held captive all that time. It's very notable.--feline1 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly goes beyond the scope of NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article (lousy title, not withstanding) documents a remarkable event, an extra-ordinary event. It deserves an entry in the annals of documented crimes here on Wikipedia. Haxwell (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is the major story of the day on every major news outlet and information resource in America, and many major news outlets around the world are giving it coverage. However, its subject matter, relevance of information, and the involvement of mysteries once unsolved will make this article a subject of study and review indefinitely. Just because something is a current event does not merit an automatic deletion just because it's all new and shiny. If that were the case, then how about we go back in time and make sure Wikipedia readers can't read about the Boston Marathon bombings for at least a week? That event is STILL current, and this one may not wrap up anytime soon as well. Again, it's one thing to talk about something with very little exposure and very little lasting power, but this story has and will have neither of those problems.Rickrollerz (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Just because it's a current event doesn't mean that it's not notable. I think that NOTNEWS is more oriented toward keeping Wikipedia free of otherwise non-notable news events that receive minor press coverage. ("For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.") This is a much more substantial and notable story and event and thus I think the article should be kept. AgnosticAphid talk 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Obviously. The rationale for the nomination is made-up one, rather than a wp-accepted rationale for a nomination. Under that thinking, we would delete abortion as a "POV magnet attracting rapid changes without discussion". Goes way beyond nothenews, as explained by a number of the !voters. This is now 18-2 for keep ... snow would be appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow keep. If the tone is problematic, just fix it! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby: Right Back at Ya![edit]

(Find video game sources: "Kirby: Right Back at Ya!" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This page, and the corresponding List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes read as an unambiguous promotional fansite and should be deleted it violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Technical 13 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as proposer. Technical 13 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The nominator doesn't need to post delete. Dream Focus 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not seeing any kind of promotion at all in either article. If there's any promotional language in them, they should just be edited, and not deleted. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no promotions at all in the articles, just some episode summaries, air dates, and language titles. As well as information for stuff relating to and about the Kirby Franchise also, no solid argument for deletion in anyway at all, per WP:UGLY. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article certainly goes to excessive, unsourced detail on some of its subject matter, but that does not make it promotional; it's not necessarily advertising the show. Not solid grounds for deletion per WP:UGLY. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 17:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFD is not clean up. The article is not in great shape, but that can be fixed. An official anime off a long-running video game series like this is easly going to meet the notability guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ThomasO1989's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the promotion issue can be fixed by editorial means and I highly doubt that there are any questions regarding the article meeting WP:N. At worst the article may need an overhaul but that a job for the talk page not AFD.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should be a speedy close. Bad nomination. No valid reason given to delete it. A show with a hundred episodes played on major stations is going to be notable. Dream Focus 04:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Any article can be viewed as promoting its subject, but that is never a reason to delete when the subject is obviously notable. It would be criminal to destroy such a well written and attractively illustrated article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject is obviously notable, and that's what matters. AfD is not cleanup. The article has some sourcing issues, but its not blatantly promoting its subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 18:17, 7 May 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page Aviral Shrivastava (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) czar · · 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aviral Shrivastava[edit]

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

No references, article seems to be a resume Ghorpaapi (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of passing any other notability criterion. The conflict of interest (all edits to the article except for the AfD are by "Avirals") is also a big problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sheer WP:COI self-promotion, so I've WP:CSD#A7'd it too. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. CSD G5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic infiltration[edit]

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

Created by blocked sock that uses Wikipedia to push a POV. I originally limited myself to recommending severe cuts to the article, as the topic existed in reliable sources, but I've now come to think that we would be better served with WP:TNT, since almost no sources in the article meet our standards and it appears still to be full of original synthesis. Let a competent and neutral user handle the topic if he or she so desires. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BASICS – bibliodrama as a way of intercultural learning for adults[edit]

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

Unstructured, Unreferenced, Promotional language as if to sell or produce something. Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non-notable, promotional, and a copyright infringement of this website. I've tagged it as such. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.—Kww(talk) 02:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Ahmed Khan[edit]

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

No references and or citations Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this account as this is an account of very famous Indian Classical vocalist of Dilli Gharana, India. for reference check his website www.dilligharana.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran4lov (talk • contribs) 7 May 2013

Comment. I found a passing mention here. I'll look for better sources tomorrow. If verified, this person passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more likely that it's a different person with the same name. --wintonian ^talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if sources don't show up by the end of this AfD. The name is sufficiently common that Googling is not helpful, and as currently written the article fails WP:V, a core policy. If we can get some good sources, it would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Ray^Talk 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much to add to the above comments really, just that the article certainly does assert notability per WP:POLITICIAN, but there seem to be no sources (in English at least) that support this and whilst the name seems to be fairly common I think we would need a good source that makes clear that the subject is this same person and not just their namesake with similar characteristics. I think this is going to be one of those articles that would be primarily supported by foreign language sources if it is retained and any can be found, until then I don't think it should remain. --wintonian ^talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The comment above by Imran4lov is confusing as this article appears to refer to a different person. As a politician, this person clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN except so far as no citations are given. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 17:49, 7 May 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Mobile Compliance (highly biased essay, not an encyclopaedia article) czar · · 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Compliance[edit]

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

The article seems to be an essay, nextly there are no citations. Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had a chance to put in the citation and references. This page is still under development. I have all the information necessary for this page, just havent inserted it :all in yet. Thank You.Mobilecomp (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Username and the article you are trying to create both seem to be the same,and hence the conflict of interest comes into the scene. Please use User:Mobilecomp/sandbox for experimenting with your articles and also refer to WP:YFA. In case you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Ghorpaapi (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but i did that on purpose so it would be the same. I didn't realize it would cause a problem. But dont delete the page, there is no conflict of interest, just information concerning mobile compliance within enterprise. I still need to add citations and references.Mobilecomp (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking a side here, I will just say that this can be userfied (moved out of mainspace and copied into a subspace of Mobilecomp). There may be an article to come from this, I have no idea, but userfying until is is ready to be submitted via WP:AFC or just moved back into main space is one option that might satisfy both sides. Leave a note on my talk page or ask any admin if it is decided that is the best outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion - leaving redirect behind per suggestion. - Vianello (Talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Horse shampoo[edit]

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

Bit of a coatrack for the domain name. No indication that this is a notable product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Qualifies under A11 and possible G3 for hoax. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per WP:CSD#G11 and tagged. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shampoo#Animal, merge at editor's discretion if references can be provided. I can't find any source to suggest that horse shampoo is particularly notable, but aside from the external link I'm not seeing any promotional concerns to justify a G11. The claims about its effectiveness are not currently supported, but a search online reveals that it is at least a subject of discussion, not really a hoax, and if properly sourced they can be included in the proposed section (which, BTW, does say near the beginning that these products should never be used on humans) — Frankie (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is pretty much junk as it is, I don't see anything worth merging, nor anything worth even keeping available in history. I can understand a redirect after delete, but not a merge. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The content is indeed poor so I don't feel strongly about it, but barring any serious issues that would require deletion, it is best to leave the content behind the redirect for interested editors to decide what is salvageable — Frankie (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably artspam attempt. When there's a title and a site that matches the title, that's what I suspect. Otherwise, hoax. Peridon (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Association of Madeira[edit]

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

Nominated for a PROD before by someone else, but deleted by the author. WP:ORG. Organisation is local in nature and of no special importance. Sources asserting notability are not to be found in English, only some blogs turn up. Crispulop (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No media coverage in English or even Portuguese except for a local blog and a couple of specialized surf sites. Does not satisfy WP:ORG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply unnotable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if verifiable sources can be found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hovercraft "Dragonfly"[edit]

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

This subject of this article has mulitple issues with verification and notability - none of the links are live, and I've followed the instructions on WP:N to search for aternatives with no success. The editor who created the page and added the details has no talk or user page. Their contributions to WP are restricted entirely to this article and all took place in March 2011, with no activity since. I believe that the article may have been intended to advertise a business venture that did not succeed, and so brings issues of "what wikipedia is not" to the table. There are no links to this article on Wikipedia. Wikiwayman (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. HairyWombat 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable. Also well aware of WP:JNN. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Applying some google-fu turns up nothing for this topic, although I did find considerably more information about a kid's show where they built a hovercraft... Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies in argumentation[edit]

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

Not a notable concept (the term "Bodies in argumentation" appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia). No objection to the creation of articles on Kevin DeLuca or Unruly Arguments if they merit such, but to have an originally-titled page about a single section of a (probably) non-notable article by a (possibly)non-notable academic is putting the cart way, way before the horse. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT/WP:SOAP and maybe WP:NOT#OR. If there were articles on the author or the publication, then this should be redirected to it, probably without merger given this is unsourced. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:OR and WP:SYN Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical drama films[edit]

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

List article with very loose selection criteria (ie topic is basically an indiscriminate list) 1292simon (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:LISTPURP, as a functional navigational aid. It's a list of historical drama films, which is a notable genre of film, so it's not particularly indiscriminate . Also, the article has been around since November 2001 and receives a high number of page hits (See article traffic statistics for May 2013). The page received 37,635 page views in March 2013 (See article traffic statistics for April 2013). Outright deletion of this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined list with notable entries. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a fully appropriate list topic per Northamerica1000's argument. However, I am not sure if the term "historical drama film" is more common than "historical film", for which there are numerous results in Google Books Search. In addition to keeping this list, I would also advocate for creating a film genre article (as historical drama film and its synonymous terms) redirect here). EDIT: This is a recent book that very much demonstrates the notability of the genre, and it is common to have lists of films that fall under an established genre. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 comments. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list article with clearly defined inclusion criteria. To disagree with the nominator's feeling it "indescriminate", it nicely meets WP:LISTPURP and serves Wikipeidia readers as a functional navigational aid. To agree with NA1K's analysis, as a list of notable historical drama films, a notable genre of film, it's not particularly indiscriminate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 comments. Sound, well organized.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern is that if any historical drama can be added to this list, there are thousands of potential entries. At which point, the article becomes too large to be much use. 1292simon (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Simon, your concern is understandable, but the answer is not to delete this list but to split the content into smaller lists. For example, see List of actors and List of science fiction films. We could discuss how to do that, but it is not a reason for deletion. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP (non-admin closure). Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Landeryou[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE FlatOut 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I accept the argument by Cullen328 that the most notorious are notable. FlatOut 03:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The subject is not notable. Vexnews may be, but the subject is not. There is little prospect for expanding the article due to lack of independent reliable sources. FlatOut 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources already in the article are from prominent Australian media outlets, and show that the subject is notable. There is no basis for presuming that the article can't be improved, and it is an acceptable short article now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly notorious, is that the same as notable? FlatOut 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The terms "notable" as Wikipedia defines it, and "notorious" as used more broadly, are by no means mutually exclusive. It is safe to say that most truly notorious people are notable and therefore worthy of Wikipedia articles. We don't limit our biographical coverage to upstanding citizens with unblemished reputations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlepocalypse[edit]

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

Student-run, amateur "professional" wresting at university. No third party sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just some more UniVanity. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a vanity article, and I wasn't able to find much in the way of reliable sources. None of the sources in the article would be ones that would be considered reliable. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable wrestling event. STATic message me! 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing offcampus seems to mention this event.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event.LM2000 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Show[edit]

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

Non-notable student theater troupe. No third party sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Fails alternate notability standards in WP:CLUB GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This gets coverage beyond Northwestern. See BroadwayWorld.com and ABCLocal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a blog and a re-print of a press release. How do you figure that those satisfy WP:GNG.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Life magazine gave them their own writeup in 1951: "Life Goes to the Dolphin Show". The Chicago Tribune has written about them possibly every year: "Northwestern Dolphin Show Is Splashy Event" (1951), "Scherazade Goes Swimming" (1965), "N.U. Show May Provide Peek at Future Entertainers" (1995), and many more. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go U Northwestern[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable school song. Fails WP:GNG, because it has no independent third party sources to establish notability. Fails all alternate notability options in WP:SONG. Previous nomination was procedurally closed GrapedApe (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known 100 year old fight song for a historic college football program, also used by numerous other colleges and high schools. GNews and HighBeam [11] show plenty of sources referencing both; someone who can get past the paywalls (or whose HighBeam subscription has not recently expired (grumble) ) can add them to the article, but it's clear this is notable in the universe of fight songs. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ranked among the best college fight songs: #35 in this listing. One of the best-known US college songs, popular for a century, used by a number of other schools: [12], [13]. Satisfies guideline WP:NSONG by being recorded by numerous notable bands and recording groups. Recorded by Guy Lombardo in 1929 as part of a medley of most popular college fight songs, on Columbia 1996-D: [14], which was a hit in the US charts for 1929: [15].. By 1940 it was [16] included in a collection of "old college favorites" in an album. It has been commercially released as a single by well known bands such as the big band of Jan Garber in 1949 on Capital 57-676:[17]. Edison (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison, notability established. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no brainer per Edison.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fight songs of major universities are typically kept. For a 100 year old song that is not presently used, I think it would be even more important to keep it as online references are likely to not exist but offline references are a different story. I'm confident the information can be verified in offline reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where did you get the idea it is no longer used? It is still used by Northwestern [http://www.nusports.com/trads/nw-songs.html [18] as well as by other colleges and high schools, as referenced above. Edison (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZwTerminateProcess[edit]

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

API calls are not of themselves notable, and there is nothing in his article to suggest that the function concerned is exceptional. I PRODed a lot of articles of this type which the contributor has challenged. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZwTerminateProcess, NtTerminateProcess, and most of other Zakblade2000’s stuff are not useful as standalone articles. These should be merged to one list of Native API calls (though as redirects these entries can certainly be useful). Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not an appendix to MSDN. For your information, Sfan00 IMG, you should have probably made a single WP:BUNDLEd nomination for all of these pages, so that we do not have to scatter similar arguments over several pages… Keφr 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jordon Hodges[edit]

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

As per the prod "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references are dead links, some don't actually mention Jordon Hodges, and the others either only barely mention him, are unreliable or non-independent sources, or are only local coverage. (Note: The article was rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jordon Hodges for lack of notability, but the author went ahead and created it anyway.)" and the second prod2 "note also the deception in the intro, making it look like blue links for Michigan Film Awards and Uptown International Film Festival by individually linking each word." Trying to make the awards seem more important. Hodges lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions (currently three blue linked but one is at afd, one is proposed for deletion and the other is a very minor roll ("Police Officer (uncredited)" on imdb)). Prod removed by "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures" who owns one of Hodges pictures and who has stated that using Wikipedia "is part of a marketing game plan." [19] duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I guess it's time for my traditional "run through of the sources" for anyone coming in. (It also helps me gather my thoughts as well.)

Sources

[20] This is an actual radio station as opposed to the blog radio station I thought it was going to be, but this has two things against it: it's a local story covering a local person and it's fairly short.
[21] This one is longer, but this has the same issue of it being a local paper. I know that people tend to differ on how usable local coverage is, but I'm kind of one of those people who think that if someone has only really received local coverage, that doesn't really count towards much.
[22] I'm kind of "eh" on whether or not this would be usable. This is another local source and covers the same film covered in the last link. What concerns me is that this looks to be sort of a very small local paper.
[23] This is actually a non-local source, but you could argue that this is trivial in nature because it's really just three paragraphs long, with most of it looking to be based off of a press release.
[24] This is another link about his movie "Sand Castles", but this one I wouldn't consider to be a reliable source at all. Even if we consider the person posting it to be an expert, there's something that makes me a little leery about something posted by a group that Hodges likely has membership with.
[25] This looks to be another very small local paper that briefly mentions Hodges as being nominated for an award that really isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Most awards aren't notable enough to keep on that basis alone (assuming the person actually wins) and most aren't even really notable enough to contribute towards notability. This doesn't look to be one of either category.
[26] Another local paper.
[27] This is a list of films made in Indiana. At best this is considered to be a trivial source since all it really does is confirm that a movie was made and that it was made in Indiana. It contributes no notability, especially since it's a list that anyone can add titles to and also pulls titles from IMDb, which also isn't usable as a RS.
[28] He's mentioned in this, but I'm not really sure that this is usable as a RS. It's the type of thing that's a blog of sorts for a community, but there's nothing to really show that this is truly a reliable source. I noted that the writer of the piece doesn't look to be one of the main staff members listed on the website, which is what is really making me leery of this. I've seen where many of these websites will accept articles from random people who contribute, with nothing to show their editing or vetting process. I would lean towards this being non-usable unless someone can verify the editorial process.

I'm trying really, really hard to be neutral but I'll admit that I'm probably going to be slightly more skeptical considering that one of the editors has already admitted outright that this is a marketing campaign for Hodges. I'll see what I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges is a young actor, and there is 3 of his biggest feature films yet to be released. If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot. Also if you happen to watch any of the films trailers, I know they cannot really be an RS, you will see that they are major films. (just go to SandCastlesFilm.com he is the lead along with Clint Howard & other notable people) I did catch a glimpse of Hodges doing a big article for Student Film Maker Magazine and HD Pro Guide, which is two pretty major sources. The articles just have not been released yet. I feel like Hodges is has nobility, just not slap in your face nobility yet. For example, there are 3 feature films that are in 90% of video stores in America, he is the lead in 2 of them, 1 has just his face on the cover. (Deadly Karma, American Scream King, Fraternity House) I just found an article all about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't It Cool News, which is one of the biggest movie sites on the planet. They called American Scream King a "true gem". See here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52517 I will add it on the Jordon Hodges page now as an RS, no idea why it wasn't in the first place. This source alone gives nobility. KonstantineUO 7 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ^[2]— KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER[reply]

— KonstantineUO (talk • contribs) has repeatedly declared a conflict of interest, being an executive of the company responsible for Jordon Hodges's films. See, for example, this edit.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his films are in 90% of video stores in America (if it's true: you give no source for that statistic) just shows that the film is widely marketed, and tells us nothing about independent coverage, which is what is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme I believe you're accidentally being misleading. On your page, [29] and I quote from what the user wrote: "Also we have not put it on Indie Wire, or any major publication on purpose. That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now. Thank you. " -- It doesn't say that Wikipedia is used for a marketing game plan, it says that they have not used their publicist to pursue their marketing game plan yet on things like Indie Wire, etc. That is part of the marketing game plan, not Wikipedia or IMDb. They are not saying Wikipedia is part of the marketing game plan, they are saying the other things are part of the marketing game plan. Probably trying to info you more, or to explain to you how it works in the film industry. Please do not quote things out of context, though I do understand how the mistake was made. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

When I made the claim I included a link to the unedited post So others can judge for themselves. I stand by my reading of the comment. "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." The plan is to have it on those three. Agreeing or disagreeing about the semantics of that promotional account is not really that important. Someone actively involved in the promotion of a Hodges project is actively involved in trying to keep some related articles here. Sound Familiar? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really, in the context of the message, "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now", coming immediately after "That is part of a marketing game plan", clearly means that putting it on Wikipedia is part of the "marketing game plan". Vorspire (the author of the article) is either surprisingly blind to the most obvious reading of that remark, or else disingenuous. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I believe you just do not understand how the business works. Nobody, ever would need a Wiki for marketing. Sorry, Wiki is just information, it isn't selling anything. Also the user, in the quoted text above, was talking about marketing about a movie, not a person, Sand Castles, in the context of the Wikipedia page Sand Castles (which happens to be part of Hodges's filmography) But that page was already deleted as they needed more news clippings (look for yourself). Maybe you guys get extra points on your account for deleting solid information? Not sure how this works yet, but if that's the case, Wiki's system isn't what I thought it was. Everyone seems to try and delete things, but nobody wants to contribute to sources or facts themselves. I am quite confused. Vorspire (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

I just added many notable references to the page Jordon Hodges -- That should be suitable now. I am still learning everything about Wikipedia and the code/language. Not sure what to do from here as far as this goes. duffbeerforme I believe I have addressed all of your concerns above, most were just poor initial efforts in the first place, easily fixed. On a side note:I have found in my searches, a gold mine for many of the titles listed in Hodges filmography with a lot of great sources. If everything meets notable guidelines, I will make as many pages of those films as I can. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page had a right to argue deletion before, but many sources have been added and coverage that is just not local for me to saying definitely keep. Has significant coverage in one of the movie industries most notable companies Ain't It Cool News (which is now sourced on his page, it was not before) also sourced in the large Michigan paper Grand Valley Lanthorn among many others. The people arguing for deletion of the page are searching for the wrong things, like JamesBWatson searching for "American Scream" instead of the title of the film "American Scream King", just a lot of minor mistakes being made. duffbeerforme tried to quote someone saying the Wikipedia was for a marketing campaign, for one, that was about a film titled Sand Castles which happens to be in Hodges filmography, but really they were saying they didn't have enough sources yet for that film title and they wouldn't until they "started their marketing campaign" as how all films leading up to the release work. That quote had nothing to do with Hodges, just a movie he is attached to, and that page has already been deleted. -- Anyone can go to Hodges' IMDb and start searching the titles he has been in and will see he is more than notable. Everyone says to source something cause it's much easier to type a sentence than it is to search and source a page, which I have done for this. Vorspire (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

"which happens to be in Hodges filmography", "just a movie he is attached to". You've changed your tune a bit there. When you first started the Jordan Hodges article that film was a central feature. But apparently "The original creator of the page just frankly, did a poor job." Yep that was you. Or did you forget which account you where using at the time? It's not a film that just happens to be in Hodges filmography, He was a writer, producer and lead actor. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're mad duffbeerforme for me busting you out for doing a poor job with this. I apologize. Remember this entire time I have been researching sources, etc. Of course my tune is going to change the more information I learn. Again I know the film industry, sorry for using lingo that is hard for you to understand. No need to be mad bro trying to take a guessing cheap shot, you just look desperate. Again, I could care less if you delete it, just if you're going too, make sure your reasons follow Wikipedia guidelines and not personal ones. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Delete. I wrote the PROD that is quoted in the nomination above, and I substantially stand by what I wrote there. The dead links and "references" that didn't even mention Jordon Hodges have been removed, but much of what we have as references is local coverage of a "Gosh, someone from round here is making films: everyone round here will want to know about that" nature, and other references are pages which barely mention Hodges, including at least one that merely gives his name in credits. There is absolutely nothing at all that suggests that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. KonstantineUO tells us that we can see from watching the trailers that "they are major films". I am not at all sure how it is possible to tell that something is a "major film" by watching a trailer: I should have thought that all one can tell from a trailer is what the film company wants us to think about it. KonstantineUO also tells us "If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot". Well, needless to say, I have Googled all of them, and what I found may or may not be considered to be "a whole heck of a lot", but it certainly is not a whole heck of a lot of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. For example, the first page of Google hits for "American Scream" consisted of IMDb, the Wikipedia article, Rottentomatoes, a trailer on YouTube, chillertv, another trailer (or more likely the same one again uploaded to a different site - I haven't checked because it makes no difference), theamericanscreammovie.com, FaceBook, movieweb, and an Amazon page selling the movie. By no stretch of the imagination do we have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In fact, I'm not sure that we have any coverage in reliable independent sources. Essentially similar results came for the other films (For Fraternity House a little care is needed, as just "Fraternity House" produces whole loads of hits nothing to do with the film, but "Fraternity House" "Jordon Hodges" gives results similar to those I have described.) Of course, I know that this is only of secondary relevance, as we need coverage of Hodges himself, not just of his films, but I am mentioning it in answer to KonstantineUO's. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, your above statement mate... The movie is not called American Scream, It's called American Scream King, and of course it's going to consist of IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. But you failed to look at the actual pages sources. Like here: [30] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest websites on the planet. The Ain't It Cool News source I just mentioned is better than being sourced from Rolling Stone Magazine in the film world, along with many other articles, Hodges is even in a 7 page magazine spread in Portfolio Fusion Magazine in one issue, and if you even go to their website you will see Hodges picture on the COVER of their Actor/Director issue (scroll down the right) [31] - Now this magazine I do not know how notable it is, it's not Rolling Stone, but you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover. I understand that might not be a proper source, just can brew in the common sense equation. If that's not notable, then it's time for me to start trying to remove the countless sites on Wikipedia of people less notable than Hodges. I can get 90k+ edits like yourself and we can argue discussions everywhere. Vorspire (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Thanks a lot for correcting my mistake over the title of the film. I have now repeated my Google search, using "American Scream King". Results were essentially similar, except that, together with IMDb, YouTube, and so on, I also found links to things like thepiratebay and other sites offering the film for download. Being "one of the biggest websites on the planet" does not mean that a site is a guarantee of notability. Wikipedia, Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are four of the biggest sites on the planet (I don't know, but my guess is that they are all far bigger than "Ain't it Cool News") but inclusion in any of them is no reliable indication of notability. In fact, being a very big site is often achieved by being indiscriminate, and willing to include anything: that is certainly why Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are so big. I also see with interest that the Wikipedia article on Ain't It Cool News says that, among other things, it includes "gossip from anonymous and unverified sources". You say "you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover", but that depends on the magazine: there are hundreds of minor publications that give prominent coverage to non-notable people. The magazine's web site says that it features, among others, "aspiring talents", and goes on to say "Our magazine provides a platform for an opportunity for individuals in the arts to advance, grow, and share inspirations". Maybe I'm wrong, but that reads to me like a marketing-professional's gobbledygook way of saying that they promote the careers of people who have not yet achieved great notability. As for your offer to seek deletion of the countless Wikipedia articles about "people less notable than Hodges", please go ahead. Among the four million plus articles on English Wikipedia there are, unfortunately, innumerable articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if you can help to reduce the number, that will be great. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolio Fusion magazine invites people to submit their bios and stories for publication so I wouldn't lend a lot of weight for notability from that source. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, in your "professional opinion" what do you consider notable sources? Or is it based on the amount of notable sources that someone has? Since Ain't It Cool News isn't a notable source to you (Or is it? Do you just need more notable sources like it to make you happy?), that leaves nothing I can think of except for being on the cover of Time Magazine. I am guessing that it needs more sources of notable ones, but if that's not the case, what do you consider notable? For example, concerning Jordon Hodges, with my research he is on the brink of a lot of stuff with the movie Sand Castles, so I will want to re-add his page with more sources if this gets deleted (just to go back up a couple months later, but whatever if it makes you feel good). I am legitimately asking what keeps people from you to even consider deleting stuff. If Ain't It Cool News isn't notable, what about Indie Wire? What about Deadline Hollywood ? They are all in the same boat, and even the biggest stars on the planet have references from all 3 above. I honestly cannot think of more notable websites in the film industry more than those 3. Can you? Can you please give me some examples? I am trying to learn, but what it feels like is you marked it for deletion when the page was poorly done, now that the page is done better you cannot let it go from being deleting. Kind of "admitting you're wrong kind of thing." Again I am not trying to be dis-respectful towards you, that is simply how it feels so far. I would like to know what sites you consider without a doubt notable for someone like Jordon Hodges... I also am learning what notable is, here is a guy, who is obviously an actor/writer/producer with actual produced films (All "rules" aside you cannot be naive to think that as false... which even low budget films take at least a million dollars) and he some reason isn't considered notable? I mean if I look at everyone I personally know in my life, everyday people, he has far more "nobility" than most people. So where is the line drawn? And please don't copy and paste basic rules from Wiki, I want to know, in your 90k+ editing experience, who is notable? I have read the nobility rules myself, obviously something got lost in translation for me. Thank you. -- [User:Vorspire|Vorspire]] (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

If this discussion results in a consensus to delete the article, I wouldn't recommend carrying out your threat to ignore that consensus and re-create the article. That kind of thing leads to being blocked from editing. 79.123.77.242 (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's no threat, and I don't agree with deleting it. If someone has a big movie come out and gets a lot of attention and there is much more notable articles about the person, then they should be added, which I will do. If I didn't do that, than it would be against everything Wikipedia stands for. I have a right to put information in as anyone. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Delete - No significant coverage beyond local papers. That is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~[32] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest and most notable movies websites on the planet. Vorspire (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (EST)~~ Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

That article is about American Scream King, and mnetions Hodges in it, but not enough that is represents significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, pure and simple, and i would give it a G11 except that an AfD will make it harder to re-create. The local sources are an excellent illustration of why we do not rely on them for notability , for film makers any more than authors. I don't think we have ever accepted AICN for notability , nor should we, considering it is explicitly devoted to rumors and gossip as much as actual information. No amount of coverage there makes for notability , again, because it's indiscriminate and highly subject to attempts at publicity. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rising filmmaker, of course it will be re-created by someone, unless he dies all of a sudden and stops making movies. I am confused people actually think / use Wikipedia for promotion and you guys actually think that. Some editors here seem very out of touch with today's real world in the professional field. I guess typing on Wiki all day can do that, but nobody would ever want a Wikipedia for promotion, that seems really dumb. Especially in a filmmakers / actors case, when IMDb is so much more important than Wikipedia. Everyone knows that. Even if they did want it for promotion, if they have the sources to back it up, then so be it. Or do you judge articles based on personal feelings or actual sources and information? I am new to Wikipedia, and I have learned a lot just by these discussions, so I do appreciate the patience of explaining stuff. I guess I would like to continue adding to Wikipedia, but this entire discussion has turned what is notable upside down. I knew who Jordon Hodges was before I started editing the Wiki, I saw his film Mary's Buttons at the Uptown Film Festival last year in Detroit. He was there to do a Q&A. I actually got to this area cause I was looking up Mary's Buttons to see if it had been released or any information about it. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impulse Black[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few local interest puff pieces. Prod removed by "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures" who owns one of producer/writer/star Jordon Hodges' pictures and who has stated that using Wikipedia "is part of a marketing game plan." [33] duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the general notability guidelines. I cannot find coverage in reliable sources about this topic. I see from Duffbeerforme's link that the involved executive hopes to screen this at a film festival. That is fine, and if that happens and coverage results, we can revisit having an article. Regardless, any future article needs to follow WP:NPOV. It is generally not a good idea for those involved with the film to work on the related article, most especially not the reception section. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Hodges's article survives AfD it can redirect there, but considering that his coverage has been almost entirely and solely local, I'm not really holding out a lot of hope for that. There just hasn't been a depth of coverage for this film enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, The cited sources are just local coverage of a "Gosh! someone from round here is in a film: people round here will be interested" nature. (NOTE: The article was created by a single purpose account, very nearly all of whose edits are about one actor and his films, and some or all of the other edits concern other actors who have worked for the same film company.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage beyond some local papers. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's obvious the movie is a real movie and many people have seen it (just based on the amount of message boards of people talking about it). But it seems they released the film more of a guerrilla style instead of having more notable sources talk about the film. -- Vorspire (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what? You do realize you created this article... correct? Are you saying that you created this entire article, with lovely infobox, and you are now realizing it was entirely fluff? Was it handed to you in an email entitled, "Please post this on Wikipedia for us"? PeterWesco (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like User:Vorspire has been blocked. Regarding the AFD does not meet WP:NFILM. This certainly is an odd AFD. Mkdw ^talk 08:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian composers[edit]

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

A laundry list of composers with very unclear eligibility criteria (For instance, I wrote a few songs with my high school rock band, should I be included?), most of whom are not notable. Very few of these entries meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, and the list is utterly redundant to Category:Australian composers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laundry list can be fixed by removing non blue links as I've done with A. Inclustion to such a list should go with the Wikipedia norm. Include notable composers. Notable + independently WP:RS called a Australian composer = on the list. Lists can provide more info than cats can. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable list of notable people and categories/lists go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the obvious thing to do is cull it down to blue links only, not AFD. This is an unfortunately low-quality nomination - David Gerard (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to explain to new and inexperienced editors in AfD discussions that lists and categories are not redundant to each other, but it's rather tiresome to have to explain it to an experienced administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good faith, gentlemen. It's obvious that consensus won't be reached here to delete, so I Withdraw the nomination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On The Verge (show)[edit]

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

Ten webcasts from Nov 11 - Nov 12; already covered in The Verge#On The Verge apart from the episode list; not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:WEB for a separate article; created by WP:SPA that has only ever written about Vox Media; promotional tone; barely referenced by WP:Primary sources; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Corn cheese (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg test[edit]

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

Non-notable psychometric test. Not reviewed or cited by any PubMed indexed source Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar. (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Responsibility Cell, XIMB[edit]

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

No notable student club at a university. The only third party coverage is ref 3, & I don;lt think that;s sufficient to support it. (I had speedied an earlier version, but this is a little better than that was). DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a specific guideline regarding student clubs and organizations? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no specific guidelines for student clubs and organizations; they're just covered by WP:ORG (and, of course, WP:GNG). One specific point there to bear in mind is that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Dricherby (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar. Reasonable search term, could ultimately become a decent article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Xavier Institute of Management, Bhubaneswar. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of roads in Ipoh[edit]

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

we only have roads lists in WP for major series of roads like List of A roads in Northern Ireland, or lists containing many notable roads. none of the roads in this article are notable, and secondly no sources are supplied so there could be original research. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ipoh is quite a notable place as there are several books about it such as Ipoh: When Tin was King The roads of the town naturally form a part of this topic, especially as Ipoh is famous for its street food. An index or list of the roads is a natural spinoff from the main article due to the extensive renaming of the roads after independence and the association of the names with people important in the history of the place. This is not OR as links to sources are provided such as Malayan Street Names, What They Mean and Whom They Commemorate. This is consistent with Wikipedia's role as a gazeteer, providing information about place names, and our editing policy is to keep not delete such material. Warden (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ipoh is quite a notable place" is not an argument for why a list of roads is notable. No doubt Ipoh is notable but does not follow that its list of roads therefore inherits notability. Secondly, None of the claims in the article are cited which I suspect is OR. Wikipedia's role as a gazeteer, so perhaps we should list every street, lane and road in the world? Your arguments fail to convince me. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, - The roads & Ipoh aren't notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Since the 7th May It's been heavily edited/improved ALOT, Certainly alot more encyclopedic than before!. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO/WP:DIRECTORY. Once you strip out the OR, you're left with little. I will comment, however, that the arguments centering on notability here are mistaking notability of an article subject with article content. We don't require article content to be notable, rather, we regulate article content through WP:UNDUE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, my point is if the roads listed in the article it would add to notability. but also arguing the subject is not notable. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – We have Category:Lists of roads by country and even List of Farm to Market Roads in North Texas. The category Category:Farm to Market Roads in Texas has 397 entries. I cannot see why roads in Malaysia would be inherently less notable than roads in the US. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply WP:OSE. And for the record, farm-to-market roads are major state and county roads in Texas. This is a list with the aim of covering all thoroughfares in a city. Somewhat different. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that that is the aim of this article, and, if it is, then that aim can be changed without deleting the whole list. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have done some work to expand and improve the article. The assumptions and assertions of the nay-sayers above are thereby refuted. Warden (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it still is a directory of non notable roads, and my nomination and counter argument that there is no inherent notability of lists of roads stands. LibStar (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have the style of a commercial directory such as Yellow Pages. Instead, it has a historical perspective which fits our style well. The notability of the topic has been established, per WP:LISTN, by referencing good sources which discuss the topic in detail. The details stand up when verified and so your false claim of OR is refuted. The idea of inherent notability is not essential because we have actual sources and there are more to come. But the general idea of inherent notability is that there are types of topic for which good sources can always be found. Historic streets in major cities seem to have this character and this case confirms it.

When I'm done with this page, I'll be expanding the article about a street in San Francisco which was recently at AFD. The two places have much in common - mining ports which were boom towns and both rebuilt after a disaster around 1900. As one researches the topic, it is interesting to compare such parallels - the importance of a well-surveyed street grid, the famous brothels, the way that names for places are established, &c.

Warden (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Given the work done on the article, it would now appear appropriate to keep it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, now that the article is somewhat improved with references to RS. The formatting is currently a mess, though, with overlapping text. Miniapolis 12:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping? It looks ok to me so perhaps that depends on the browser, settings or screen size. Warden (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get this problem too. Let's discuss it at Talk:List of roads in Ipoh#Overlapping content as it has no bearing on this deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GameGuideDog[edit]

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

Per the rules on WP:N, I do not believe this article has sufficient notability. The only "third party" sources I've ever seen written on GameGuideDog were written by Garfield, the site's creator. The sources on the article are largely taken from the site and its sister website. Furthermore, the article has a conflict of interest, given that it is written and primarily maintained by Garfield. Craven Lunatic (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 05:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NWEB/WP:GNG. SET with Google reveals a grand total of 586 hits. Nothing on Google News, nothing on LexisNexis. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Web, no assertion of notability and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG, and seems to be nothing more than a platform for free promotion for the websites owner, which is obviously a problem. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Siurek[edit]

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

Non-notable Person. Fails GNG and WP:NRVE. Most likely fails WP:RS and WP:BLPSPS? Cameron11598 (Converse) 05:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 05:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, and tagged as such. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ne' Richa[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC: MTV Bio, A2IM Libby Awards, YoRaps, plus other coverage in possibly-reliable sources. --TheSnakeEyes (talk) 5:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnakesEyes (talk • contribs)

Comment Those are all self written and unreliable. This artist is obviously trying to promote herself on Wikipedia. Koala15 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow you are the person that created the page you might be Ne' Richa herself. Koala15 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not productive in debates; please remember the Wikipedia policy on Assume Good Faith and also have a read of Don't Bite the Newbies. Repeated acts of bad faith can result in temporary blocks. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only one of the sources you just cited is a reliable source (The MTV bio), but even that is not enough. Not notable artist. STATic message me! 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tho not my field, it is reasonably clear that nothing in this rather promotional bio amounts to notability. No major performances or recording, and sources based almost entirely on press releases. It should not have been accepted from AfC--it was even weaker at the time; indeed, AfC was intended to keep this sort of material out of mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Hey Koala15, you might not want to make assumptions on things that you don't know. And as far the MTV biography goes, it was written by Linda Hobbs, who has written many critically acclaimed articles for Vibe magazine.

TheSnakesEyes (talk 01:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infinito 2017[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice before then re created, and the topic is still non notable. Koala15 (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC: Allmusic bio, Chicago Sun-Times, okayplayer, plus other coverage in possibly-reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Allmusic entry and media coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Teodros[edit]

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

This article seems promotional, from the lack of editors and media coverage. Koala15 (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable given a couple of minutes of Google searching. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you point out which of these sources you found pass WP:RS? I am not sure it is that clear as my couple of minutes on Google found sources that are mainly passing mentions, broken links, and bios on self-published websites. If there is something that I missed, please point it out so that I can re-evaluate my delete !vote. Thanks. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These for example: Allmusic, Hip Hop in America: a Regional Guide, Hip Hop Connection, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The Stranger, The Stranger, NPR, The Stranger, The Seattle Times, The Stranger, and possibly also North West Military. --Michig (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After my delete !vote on Abyssinian Creole, I thought that this article had hope as there are many sources listed under the reference section. Unfortunately, they are broken links, self-published bios, and a few passing mentions. Not sure which one of them pass WP:RS. As such, this artist fails WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep - These would all be reliable sources from the Wiki article and more than "passing mentions", correct? WIRED Magazine, Discovery News, Seattle Weekly, The Stranger, San Francisco Weekly, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Okayplayer and The Seattle Times. Also, I actually don't see a single self-published bio referenced in the Gabriel Teodros Wikipedia article, with the one exception of the link from Terrorbird, which is the 32nd reference and is only used to back up half of one sentence. All the reference links worked when they were originally posted, and should still be able to be found using either a google search or with the addresses typed into archive.org - 24.18.191.231 (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I posted here a few days ago and haven't seen a response yet, but also in regards to the WP:RS and WP:GNG of this artist is his Lovework album, which received critical acclaim in Rolling Stone Magazine, URB (magazine), ColorLines, JIVE Magazine, Okayplayer, AllHipHop and more. - 24.18.191.231 (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources above me. Seems to be notable. Unsure why it is promotional. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We don't currently consider ambassadors to be inherently notable. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Shibata[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. coverage merely indicates he held the post. also there is a chef with the same name too popping up in coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Some may recall this recent discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miyoko_Akashi. Michitaro (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like he is no longer the ambassador to Angola, Ryōzō Myōi is (see here). Shibata is no longer listed as one of Japan's ambassadors: here is the MOFA list. Michitaro (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not while the RFC is ongoing, please. This is going to end up being another no consensus close, between those who think that people without significant coverage are not notable, and those who think ambassadors are inherently notable. Ray^Talk 16:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, inherent notability has not been established. article must pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- ambassadors are inherently notable. Compare the limited scope of our article about Lucius Foote who was the first American diplomat in Korea from 1883 to 1885. Like Foote, Shibata is one of a series of diplomats in a small country. --Ansei (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors are not inherently notable, there is no guideline which says that. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading through a bunch of news articles in translation, I find no significant coverage of the subject - these are all trivial mentions in the context of "the Japanese embassy announces" or "the president received," etc, thus failing WP:BIO. We can (and do) find more press mentions of senators' press secretaries. Ray^Talk 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the lack of in-depth coverage other than just passing routine mentions, I'm not convinced this passes the WP:GNG notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous AFD was an abberation and is now sitting at DRV. The guideline WP:DIPLOMAT maked it clear that the subject should have adequate sourcing so the policy based position here is deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors ought to be considered as intrinsically notable as its the highest rank of their profession. We haven't always done so, but we should, and we certainly should at least when its the diplomat of a major nation like Japan. The coverage problem is the result of cultural bias, since he was the ambassador to Angola, and that's where the coverage needs to be looked for. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its a misnomer to say its the peak of the profession. There are loads of British Ambassadors who are only middle-ranking in smaller posts and not even senior civil service. Its ridiculous to argue that a G7 or G6 is inherantly notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ambassadors are not inherently notable, there is no guideline which says this, and this is simply inviting criteria for the purposes of a keep !vote. here is one recent example of an ambassador article being deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Richardson (diplomat). LibStar (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep per DGG. this fits with all of our other intrinsic notability criteria, and realistically, the chance that he wasn't extensively covered in actions as the ambassador is vanishingly small, its just a matter of finding the sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources[edit]

Extensive results mentioning him in various official announcements and negotiations
- http://www.portalangop.co.ao/busca/index.jsp?locale=pt_pt&text=Susumu+Shibata&canal=465b925b-cbfb-465c-b2cf-575506c6bbb5%2C260e7a6b-5d8e-4a0b-a0c5-9d435e1d224b&Ok.x=-576&Ok.y=-115&Ok=submit
- http://allafrica.com/search/?search_string=Susumu+Shibata&search-submit=Search

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, to whose excellent points I would also add that even if we decided that there was not enough verifiable content in existence for a standalone article on a particular ambassador, we would still merely merge and redirect the individual to a list for that ambassadorship, so per WP:ATD this shouldn't have come here at all. postdlf (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you explain how a relatively junior official in a small post can be considered inherently notable when they are well short of the pinnacle of their profession? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the "pinnacle" to you? Just whatever few ambassadorial posts you subjectively consider "important"? We are determining that it's the head of any ambassadorial post. Would you also exclude backbenchers as not at the "pinnacle"? postdlf (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arkus (IRML S.A.)[edit]

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

I earlier deleted this as an entirely promotional article. It has since been re-created and I think remains highly promotional, with no outside reliable sources--everything is a press release or closely based on one. I'd rather not use G11 again, but ask for a community decision. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have reviewed the article according to different contributors suggestions. Please provide us with feedback on how to make it better and help us so that we can keep it on Wikipedia. Chatzjohn —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 24 April 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Who is "we" who have reviewed the article? (And where did this feedback come? The article has no talk page and the only comment at User_talk:Chatzjohn is the AfD notice.) The use of "we", along with the single-issue editing of User:Chatzjohn suggests that the page was probably created by somebody very closely involved with the subject (WP:COI). Dricherby (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional, I couldn't find any notability and I'm concerned by the conflict of interest I mentioned above. Dricherby (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be company account with paid editors. See WP:ROLE. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Dafaallah[edit]

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

I deleted an earlier copyvio version. I don't think it shows notability. Being nominated for awards is not enough, nor being on the cover of a magazine. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete looks too much like a resume. awards do not confer notability. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has almost no mention in mass media, content too promotional, fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite all of the awards and recognition he is claimed to have gotten, I couldn't actually find any coverage of this person from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Lugia2453 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shirlee Elliot[edit]

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

Shirlee Elliot seems to only ever have had a major role in "Sweet Valley High". However generally we require major roles in 2 notable television series/films, she seems to only have had one and thus does not meet the notability guidelines for entertainers. I do not see from my search any indication she has recived widespread, indepth coverage. She does not seem to meet our notability requirments for people involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR, WP:V. I can't verify that she had more than a few supporting roles. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. Role in Buddy Faro appears to be minor. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coomera Cutters[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. just an amateur club in a junior amateur competition LibStar (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I know nothing about the general topic, but the subject and its sources are unpromising. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Something on this level would need above-average coverage, since puff pieces and soft news coverage are common and unhelpful for notability. We're not even getting average coverage, let alone above-average. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Shafi Malik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:BASIC Darkness Shines (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ~~Criminally~~ short but not sure if it can ever be expanded. Strike Σagle 02:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear fail of WP:GNG. He won an award once, whoopedy doo. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "whoopedy doo, he passes WP:ANYBIO"? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is hardly any reliable material for this topic. Although I am a little surprised that he has won the third highest civilian prize but still have no coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has given a delete opinion based on WP:GNG failure or a claim that there is hardly any reliable material for this topic must have looked for Urdu sources, so could one of you please tell us how the subject's name is written in that language? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kinsella[edit]

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

Not notable. No major media coverage of him in a biographic sense that show notability or life story, though there is some mention of his bioethic views. Some mention on the Internet of the posthumous award in his name but otherwise draws blank in news and Google search for biographic purpose. The award may be worth an entry. Some scholarly material but fails WP:PROF. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep the award is a pretty strong indication of notability, though it's hard to find a lot on him now. -- Scray (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This annal lists him as one of the people who pioneered the Canadian Bioethics Society. He also seems to have done a study on assisted suicide that gained quite a bit of coverage in both books and the news. ([34], [35], [36], [37]) It also seems to be quoted or referenced quite a bit in textbooks such as this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that he's quoted in passing. Virtually no bio material on him or anything that puts his work in context or shows he's more important than the many other bioethicists. As for the award, it could be like a scholarship where the family or the person funds it through an annuity. Fails WP:GNG Spoonkymonkey (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a professor and he was awarded CM, FRCPC, FACP. Wikipedia is lacking many medical biographies it should really have. Lack of coverage might mean it cannot advance beyond a stub at this stage, there is sometimes a lack of obituaries for older people whose peers have been retired for a long time and are no longer active. This [38] I presume has been published by his family, but it seems reliable confirmation of this. (Does the FRCPC have anything equivalent to Plarr's Lives of the Fellows?) Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still no reliable biographic sources.He didn't die that long ago. if he was notable, there would have been full obituaries in major publications. Instead, we are asked to rely on death notices from the family to prove notability. The FRCPC and FACP designations are very common.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like this one in the Journal of Rheumatology? Also, I do think that FRCPC is a notable level. He was also President of the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another family-authored piece. Barney, have you heard of the present president of the Canadian Rheumatology Association -- an august group that has somehow flown under the radar to the extent that no one has created a Wikipedia page for it? The past president? The president is Dr. Carter Thorne and the past president is Dr. Cory Baillie. I think those red letters tell us how quickly Wikipedia leaps to acknowledge the notability of presidents of the CRA. I'd be much more impressed if a major Canadian newspaper had done an obit on this guy.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, I'm not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is any better. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1 as recipient of the Order of Canada, and probably WP:SCHOLAR as professor emeritus of medical bioethics at the University of Calgary medical school. A quick newspaper search using Nexis UK gives:

David Vienneau, "19% of MDs say patients sought mercy killing", The Toronto Star, February 19, 1993, Friday, AM, News A2 reports on a study by Kinsella and Marja Verhoef into euthanasia.

Gerry Bellett, "AIDS patient says he has made plans to end his life", The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia), September 29, 1994, Thursday, FINAL EDITION, News A3 quotes Kinsella as an expert.

Anonymous, "MDs in study back assisted suicide", The Toronto Star, September 28, 1996, Saturday, SATURDAY SECOND EDITION, News A8 reports on another survey into physician-assisted suicide by Kinsella and Varhoef.

Robert Walker, "Patient hurt by drug trial", Calgary Herald (Alberta, Canada), July 03, 1999, FINAL, News A14 discusses a campaign to improve drug testing by Kinsella and Jim Wright as part of an article on drug testing.

Robin Summerfield and Lynne Koziey, "Citizens panel help sets policy", Calgary Herald (Alberta, Canada), December 18, 2000 Monday FINAL EDITION, City B1 quotes him as "professor emeritus of medical bioethics at the University of Calgary medical school" as an expert on ethics.

Margaret Munro, "'You failed to protect rights, safety and welfare' of boy: U.S. inspection found Canadian experiment overdosed 4-year-old", The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia), February 26, 2004 Thursday Final Edition, News A3 quotes him as an expert on medical ethics and clinical research.

Probably someone with access to in-depth Canadian databases could find more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Ball and see why a bunch of stories that quote someone are not considered enough evidence of notability. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not just articles that quote Douglas Kinsella, but mostly articles about his work, which is much more relevant to an encyclopedia than biographical details about his personal life. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no biographical material not written by the family. The Tim Ball page was deleted for precisely this reason. A bunch of quotes with tag lines "so-and-so, an expert on such-and-such", does not establish notability or provide anything to work with to get the entry out of stub territory. People have said "keep" by saying he was president of some organization or another, when the actual organization isn't important enough to have a page. As for the Order of Canada, it has not rated a separate category, and even some recipients mentioned on the Order of Canada page show up red. I'm not saying this guy's a nobody. Obviously he was a moderately successful doctor and a medical prof. But that has not been enough to establish Wikipedia notablility.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my last comment? The point is that articles about academics should be based on coverage of their work, not of their favourite colours or inside leg measurements. And the absence of other articles is totally irrelevant, as Wikipedia is far from complete. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you follow my link and see how a whole whack of press material like this was rejected as evidence of notability? If you want to channel your genius into going through this material and making a bio that is up to Wikipedia standards, be my guest. I am sure you do more on Wikipedia than dazzle people with commentary.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion that you linked a whole whack of opinion pieces and primary source material was rightly rejected as evidence of notability. In this case we have independent coverage of the subject's work, a totally different kettle of fish. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the Order of Canada (WP:PROF#2), for the presidency of the Canadian Rheumatology Association (#C6), for the media attention paid to his research (particularly the assisted suicide surveys in 1993 and 1996 and the drug testing improvement campaign in 1999; I'm not counting stories that merely quote him as an expert) (#C7), for several highly cited papers in Google scholar (#C1, though the case here is weaker than for the other WP:PROF criteria), and for the reliably published biographical material about him [39] [40] (WP:GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Order of Canada is definitive proof, and actually nothing further needs to be proven (though there is a great deal additional available, as summarized by David e.) That some of the people earning the award don't yet have articles is not evidence of their lack of notability , but a problem to be remedied. I am quite amused by the implied argument that lack of coverage in WP is proof of lack of notability. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are easily amused. I see that the article -- actually, the stub of an article on someone none of you have ever heard of -- will stay. I'm dying to see how much real work you will undertake to actually fix this article, rather than just impart your feelings to us.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to respond to every keep vote to have the last word? It seems to be slightly uncivil when you have nothing of any worth to say. It also seems that you're taking an overly personal interest in this deletion discussion, the reason for this is that you have some interest in his son Warren Kinsella, which is now under page protection because of edit warring. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Kinsella page had been whitewashed by Warren Kinsella, whose self-ID'd accounts have been locked down for sockpuppetry. There were several satellite pages created or mostly written by Kinsella: one on his garage band, another on his girlfriend, and this one. I wanted to basically muck out what I saw as vanity pages and promo edits. I did not mention this earlier in the discussion because I wanted the page to stay or go on its own merit, and not have his son's blanking actions, vandalism, lawsuit threats and other breaches of Wikipedia rules and etiquette have an influence on the discussion.I assure you the Warren Kinsella page is not locked down because of vandalism or trouble caused by me. In fact, I'm the person who ID'd the vandalism and asked for page protection. The version that's locked is a reversion to the last good, pre-blanking edit, which was mine. I'm only talking about it now because you brought it up. I wonder if you have some sort of dog in this fight?Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Order of Canada and having a prestigious award named after him suggest notability. Obviously sourcing needs to be improved. I'll see if I can add some material. JJ Williams (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl's findings. Does not seem like there is an appetite to delete this and the delete camp's arguments don't seem particularly strong against GNG. Mkdw ^talk 08:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Boli International Punjabi Film Festival , Vancouver[edit]

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

Notability is questionable. The primary source is the subject website and google search reveals results including only Facebook pages, youtube video or other websites which in turn embed the youtube videos only. I couldn't find any independent news coverage of the event, which could establish notability. Vigyani (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a WP:RS from the South Asian Link Newspaper in Surrey, reporting on the ups and downs of the first edition, now completed. My concern is that we're not picking up Punjabi-language coverage, however, of which there must be more -- or so I think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. needs coverage in wider media which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find any good sourcing for this event. LGA _talk^edits 07:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 09:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Liberty Flames football team[edit]

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

there seemes to be no reason for this page, the info should be on the team pagwe Thus Spake Lee Tru. 16:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Typically we find that there is enough press generated from Division I college football seasons to warrant an individual article and pass WP:GNG. While I personally wouldn't have pursued an individual season article for this team (maybe a cluster of multiple seasons or a conference season article would be better) and the article itself is not showing the third party reliable sources that we like, I am confident that such third party sources do indeed exist. The issue then comes down to being that the article is incomplete and in need of editing instead of the subject being non-notable and the article needing deleted. As far as the information being on the team page, Liberty has been playing football for 40 years now and at an average of 10 games a season, that's 400 lines of a table for each game and would be very clumsy for one article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak merge. Via Paul McDonald. I am a former student, though, of Liberty, so I won't be offended if you don't include my vote. However, I think Paul McDonald described what should happen to the article well and I agree. $srsrox BlahBlahBlah...$ 19:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Unless and until in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is shown, this article subject fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. As sports editors and AfD participants, we have become very loose and very sloppy in our thinking because we have started to presume there is such coverage for NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) programs (the old Division I-A), and now by extension to Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams (the old Division I-AA). There is no applicable specific notability guideline for college football seasons, no automatic "pass" or presumption of notability for the individual seasons of either FBS or FCS teams. Liberty is among the newest and least established FCS programs, and among the least likely to generate significant, in-depth coverage apart from non-independent sources and the hometown newspaper. We need to go through the full GNG analysis in this case. If and when in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources is shown to exist, apart from routine coverage and trivial mentions, I will be happy to change my !vote to "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that there are also Liberty Flames football team season articles for 2010, 2011 and 2012. These articles appear to be likely candidates for a possible merge into a list of seasons, as a possible alternative to deletion, per WP:CFBSEASON. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Liberty is hardly the only FCS school that has individual years and this isn't the only Liberty. I don't think we should arbitrary delete certain schools pages. Something needs to be decided across the Wiki college football spectrum about individual seasons. In the future I wouldn't be opposed to merging the season into a page like "Liberty Flames football under Danny Rocco."--Southronite (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've voted to "delete" on several "season" articles on Division II/III football programs, which often get little to no coverage. But I think Paul had it right in his initial comment. Press coverage is pervasive for football teams competing at the Division I level. Moreover, the Liberty Flames have become an increasingly notable team in recent years (five Big South Conference championships since 2007). The hiring of ex-Kansas coach Turner Gill in 2011 was a move toward transitioning the Flames to an even higher level of play. Also, the program's affiliation with Jerry Falwell has resulted in the program probably getting more coverage than most Division I-FCS programs. See, e.g., this from ESPN in 2011, this from Fox News in 2011, this from The Charlotte Observer in 2007, this from the Orlando Sentinel in 1995, this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1994, this from The New York Times in 1994, this from the Austin American-Statesman in 1993. As for the 2009 season, the team won the Big South Conference co-championship, and a Google news archive search reveals a good deal of coverage. See, e.g., this, this, this, this,this, this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are certainly valid concerns regarding the independence of the sourcing, but it is not entirely unreasonable to consider the United States Council of International Business source to be a valid one. It is arguably enough for the verifiability requirements to be met, and deleting on grounds of notability would require a consensus, something that I cannot see here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lokring Technology[edit]

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

Following up on the restored biographical article on this firm's chairman (restored at the request of someone at the firm), I sought references that could confirm the firm's notability. I have added a basic Bloomberg overview to the article but have not found substantial discussion of the firm (via Google, Highbeam, Questia), so while the firm clearly exists and trades, it appears to fall short of the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches only can confirm the company exists. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I considered merging / redirecting this article to William Lennon as an alternative to deletion as Lennon is the president and CEO of the company. However, I could not find anything to establish Lennon's notability either and have nominated that article for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As you can see, new sources have been added to ensure validity to the company. They include government, and very well known companies in the oil and gas field such as Exxon Mobil. These were not articles that were created by the company by any means but can be used to ensure that credible information has been provided. Preceding insigned comment by User:DarienR
- Reply - verifiability is not at issue here. It is a question of whether inclusion criteria are met. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Are you able to view the page now and let me know if it seems to be informative and inclusive enough? DarienR (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like the article to have its information reviewed. I've basically redone the page using credible and informative data on the company. DarienR (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and Comment. I voted to Delete the William Lennon article, and stand by that. On the company, the new links barely pass in my view, and there is a bit of WP:INHERIT such as in the USCIB piece. But, the longevity of the firm is real, and coverage may be harder to find simply because its technology is specialized.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm not understanding how the USCIB piece is WP:INHERIT. The documentation is not validating that Lokring is a real company, but rather validating that they have ran their own tests on Lokring's products and are sharing their results with the public. DarienR (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion of an article are related to, but separate from verifiability. While the information and references added into the article may be "credible and informative data on the company", what is needed to establish that an article should be on Wikipedia is whether the company has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The reliable sources would be things like newspapers and magazines. Although not all Wikipedia editors would agree with me, in that list I would include trade magazines or specialty media. I have reviewed the sources, and I do not believe they are sufficient to establish that article is justified. My analysis of the sources is below.

Source analysis

Bloomberg Business Week is providing simply a directory entry. Does not establish notability.
INC 500 simply names them on a list with no actual coverage.
Fundinguniversse pulled this out of International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 40. St. James Press, 2001. which is a directory, but in any case, Lokring is just a passing mention as the entry is for Wabtec.
California Air Resource Board is some sort of regulatory agency so this doesn't establish notability, only verifies the certification.
Rigzone appears to be a specialty/trade web site. But the article is written by an employee of Lokring and thus is not an independent source
Lokring's site is a primary source
United States Council of International Business has a role of business promotion so I don't see this as independent coverage.

As such, none of the sources are useful for establishing that an article for Lokring should be included on Wikipedia. This is not a judgment on whether the company is a good one. It simply is about having the coverage needed per WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where I would depart is in the characterization of the United States Council for International Business. It is not an ad agency if that is what you imply. It does trade promotion in the sense of public policy, not marketing. Even as such it has plenty of targets to choose from, and it is an endorsement that Lokring got featured. The piece is also evidence that Lokring is credible as a technology company company and with a demanding customer such as ExxonMobil. Enough for me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your position on the USCIB utility as a source, although I don't completely agree. However, that still represents only one source when we would expect to see more to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Do you have a business page for a similar company that is "Wikipedia" approved that I can use as a reference? The "USCIB" article was written by a professor at Dartmouth University and is a very informative and detailed analysis of how Lokring and ExxonMobil (which is a very well known company in the oil and gas field) have been working together for years. The Rigzone article may have been written by a Lokring employee, but the Rigzone magazine is a very reliable resource in the oil and gas field. I'd like to have a reference to how an oil or gas company should be listed in Wikipedia because we do reference our Lokring Wikipedia page quite frequently to provide information on what different technologies are offered in the oil and gas field and also to provide insight on our company's history. DarienR (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq's analysis. Binksternet (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still waiting for a reply on what oil and gas company I should reference on Wikipedia. I'd like to have some sort of guidelines that I can follow so that I can edit the page accordingly. DarienR (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I suggest you drop by the Teahouse and ask for editting help. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - Is the deletion going to occur soon? I would like as much time as possible to make the necessary changes to the article once I find out what more information I can add. I've found a few more articles that I can add but I'm going to do some research using Teahouse to figure out the best way to make those changes. -- DarienR (talk)) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - If the article is not ready yet, there are options available allow the article to be further developed. It can be userfied. An administrator can make a copy of a deleted article available as a subpage in your user space to be worked on until it is ready to be moved back to article space. Another alternative is WP:incubation which is similar but the article is more accessible and visible to other editors for assistance. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - I've been looking through the oil and gas pages trying to figure out what information I could add. Can I request that the page not be deleted yet? I'd like some more time to make some changes to it. Thank you very much in advance! DarienR (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you want to do is read Wikipedia:Userfication. That guideline tells you to put the text into your own user space to be worked on in private. It will be tagged as a work in progress so that it does not try to serve as an alternate encyclopedia entry. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OBERLINER[edit]

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

Magazine of only local importance, no claim to notability in the article, so far only primary sources used; a cursory search on google did not let me find reliable sources Lectonar (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

addendum: strong indication of WP:COI by IP 178...., see article history. Lectonar (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added third party references now and will keep improving the information. Please consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.5.215.147 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NMAG. This is a small, local publication less than two years old. Particularly of note is the (now removed) job posting in the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No media presence except self-promotion. No awards etc. Far short of WP:NMAG.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nahshon Nahshonov[edit]

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

No external references or coverage demonstrated at all - except for a self-published entry at a PR blog. CSD template removed by another user whose only edits were to this article. Username of article creator (User:Linkproz) seems to imply this may be a promotional piece - see [41]. No hits on Google news search at all except for a mirror of said PR piece. - Vianello (Talk) 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any instance on LinkProz is removed, there is not need for any promotional activity the main concern is the donations, and this Wikipedia piece will encourage other wealthy individuals from Russian decent for these types of donation. Please let's change the necessary items, and keep the wikipedia piece on this important individual. Linkproz (Talk) 04:27, 7 May 2013 (GMT+2)

Comment: So the purpose of the article is to promote this individual in order to solicit donations? I will let this comment speak for itself and advise the article creator to read WP:NOTADVOCATE. - Vianello (Talk) 01:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to be used as an encyclopedia piece, the meaning of the comment, that it does not have any business promotional purpose. I understand how this shouldn't be promoting anything, but please explain why now, in it's revised stage it should be removed.Linkproz (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll rephrase myself, do you think an individual whos tax documentation shows of a net worth of over $500,000,000 USD, and which contribute to economy as well as save lives of thousands of children should not be listed in Wikipedia or is your issue with the way it is presented and would like for the article to be revised? Linkproz (Talk) 04:39, 7 May 2013 (GMT+2)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though I brought the article here to get the input of others, not to debate, for purposes of at least providing a bit of explanation: The article does not provide one single reliable external source to indicate what WP:BIO notability criteria its subject meets - or to satisfy the requirement of WP:BLP that all biographies of living persons have sources for all their claims. I am merely offering this as an explanation. I will avoid further debate and allow those reviewing this AfD to offer their opinions. - Vianello (Talk) 02:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: The only reference in the article that even mentions him is a press release (which by definition is not an independent reliable source). As noted in the nomination there is no other independent reliable coverage. In reply to Linkpros, a multi-millionaire philanthropist (like anyone else) should be listed in Wikipedia only if he satisfies Wikipedia’s “notability” standard as described succinctly at WP:42. —teb728 t c 03:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - PR placement by professional spammers. Bizarre as it seems to us oldsters, there is such a thing as a non-notable demi-billionaire nowadays. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I've actually found quiet a few resources while searching for his name in Hebrew, you can also see blev-echad.org site which verifies at the very list the donation activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.81.227 (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Meat/sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Linkproz Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the activities is notable enough, nor is the corpus. Coverage in English is basically nil. If the crossout means there is not enough in Hebrew, then all the more Delete. The charity may deserve an article in future, but fails WP:ORG in any case at this time.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a look at this and the "references" when it was first created and thought it was really borderline. Having taken a second look it's definitely on the delete side of that line due to the lack of any reliable sources to establish notability. It's also promotional spam of course QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete This is a very well known individual in Israel you can find a lot about him if you search his name in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.19.81.47 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Actually, I was able to find many refernaces to nahshonov, even in english, also on Belev Echad & on chaim kanievsky wikipedia pages. I was able to briefly verify about 60% of the information in this article, not sure about the rest since some of the sources are in hebrew/russianStatusg12 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Statusg12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete After examining (and truncating references that were inappropraite) we're left with simple references that don't justify an article about the subject. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of National Lampoon films. If anyone wants to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon's Totally Baked: A Potumentary[edit]

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

Seems non-notable. Not listed on Metacritic. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't list any critic reviews. Google only shows user reviews, no news pieces. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Atlantima ~✿~ (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The movie exists, but seems to have been ignored by reliable sources. I can find no article, or reviews of this movie. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like Whpq, I cannot find any coverage. However, we do have List of National Lampoon films, and if anyone is willing to undertake the task, the list could be converted into a table format so at least each film in this franchise could have a summary. If we could do such an approach, I would support merging this topic to that list. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to List of National Lampoon films. I tried doing a bit of a cleanup and I found two small sources, but they're not enough to really warrant a keep. In an interesting note, I want to say that most of what I'm finding lists it just as "Totally Baked: A Potumentary", so I don't know if that means we drop the "National Lampoon" from the title or not. I know that the norm is that we only include the "National Lampoon" or any other such formatting if that's how the movie is commonly displayed. (Such as in the case with National Lampoon's Van Wilder) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and let's continue a proper look for sources. The "Find sources" assigned by the AD template is not as useful as we might hope. I found this film HAS been the recipient of commentary and review. (IE: DVD Verdict [42], JoBlo [43], Cinemania [44], et al.) Is it the most notable film ever? Nope. Is it just notable enough for Wikipedia so as to serve its readers? I think yes. What else may have been missed due a dependence on a poor "Find sources"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I have searched for suitable references in the past, but didn't find much beyond passing mentions. However, the number of such mentions suggests it possesses some notability. Rather than deletion, I'd like to see List of National Lampoon films converted into a summary table format, with an entry for this film. Praemonitus (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have any significant coverage in genuinely reliable sources. The sorry recent history of the National Lampoon tag (nothing to do with the original films) doesn't convince me that there's anything worth merging here - an entry in the List of NL films is sufficient. --Michig (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of National Lampoon films due to lack of independent notability. A brief mention at the list article seems most suitable, and I would not mind that list's entries being a little more fleshed out to at least give brief synopses of each film, including this one. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ditch the Label. After appropriately weighing votes, it was clear only a small minority of participants felt a standalone article was appropriate at this time. The history is there if anyone wants to work on a merge. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Hackett[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article is poorly referenced, clearing self serving, arguably extremely premature. Article is highly padded out with useless filler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination of behalf of the above IP user, using the rationale provided on WT:AFD. I have no opinion. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only notable in connection with Ditch the Label, which already has an article. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, does not need a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.249.71 (talk) 09:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Subject is notable as own entity with specific attention to academic commentary on bullying policy and resolution. There are less notable subjects on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.239.202 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 May 2013 — 109.144.239.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a keep reason, particularly for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is one of many "experts" on bullying, and not a particualrly prominent one. As said above, he is notable only in connection with Ditch the Label, which already has an article. The only separate issue in this article seems to be the sentence "He also manages the Brighton based digital marketing and brand identity agency Hackett & Tiger" which is purely promotional of a commercial outfit. Emeraude (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or perhaps merge into Ditch the Label if there's anything worth keeping). The only web search result I've found of any significance is this HuffPo article which in my opinion is insufficient. All other rssults I've found are either non-independent or just routine, passing mentions. Hence fails WP:GNG. Oh and, as a Brightonian, I've never heard of him.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I disagree, it is normal that he has a very close connection to the organisation Ditch the Label, since he's the founder, ALSO, the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label. Concerning about the web search, there are actually more than just this HuffPo article, there are still some good sources listed in 'References'. I find the article serves enough information about Liam Hackett, there arent any additional or non-cited information about him BUT those that has been gathered from all the sites listed under 'References'. Concerning about the line "He also manages the Brighton based digital marketing and brand identity agency Hackett & Tiger" yes, its kinda promotional so I will remove the line. The reason behind me adding 'Hackett & Tiger' into the article is because I wanted to provide more information to the article for the public to read about him, not for commercial purpose, also the info about Hackett & Tiger is also in some of the links/sites given in the reference list. Anyway, I think the article should be kept, cause the organisation is improving which also means more exposure for Liam Hackett and DTL and this can lead to more info. Nicholance (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anyway, I think the article should be kept, cause the organisation is improving which also means more exposure for Liam Hackett and DTL and this can lead to more info" - BLPs have to be good articles in the present, not in the WP:POTENTIAL future. The proper thing to do with a badly-sourced BLP is delete it without prejudice; claiming it should be kept because there might be good sources later is actually an admission that the sources are bad, and that it should therefore be deleted - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. As concerns WP:ACADEMIC, massively short.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References to subject are from high quality sources, each published very recently. At least bordering notable enough and one could assume increasingly so. WP:POTENTIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.236.94 (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — 94.193.236.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- When WP:POTENTIAL conflicts with WP:BLP, BLP wins - a badly-sourced BLP should be deleted until there are good enough sources. "It could be a good article one day!" is not in any way sufficient to keep a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might I suggest that more content is added to the article? I am aware of who the subject is and do know that he has a bold history of online social media activism. Perhaps something about his online presence could be added? Also found this article - is this of any use? http://www.attitude.co.uk/viewers/viewcontent.aspx?contentid=2891&catid=comment&subcatid=general_news&longtitle=INTRODUCING%3A+DITCH+THE+LABEL Agree with the above comments that article is borderline but it seems subject is gaining increased notoriety, especially over the past few months. I think he is notable of a page although do feel that it needs expanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.253.68 (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the title of that piece is "INTRODUCING: DITCH THE LABEL" (original caps). OK, it says a lot (probably too much given the title) about Hackett, but it's basically a source for the Ditch the Label article! The same is true for the other sources: they refer primarily to bullying or to the charity, with the odd quote from Hackett which he has only made because he is.... leader of the charity.Nicholance says, correctly, that "the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label". In other words, he has no notability beyond the charity. Emeraude (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect - First, let me point out something to the people voting that this is by consensus, not by !vote count. There could be 10 delete votes and 1 keep vote and the rationale from the keep vote could be enough to keep the article (or vice versa). With that in mind, I would suggest coming up with policy based reasons to support your !vote. For me, I do not see this persons being notable independent of the nonprofit group that he founded. The references in the article are about the organziation, not him, and only mention him as part of the organization. While there is WP:SIGCOV about the organization, there isn't any for him. I would consider them passing mentions and notability is not WP:INHERENT. Also, some of the sources are the same as they talk about a study released by the organization, but for notability they can only be counted 1 time as they are references about the same report. Looks like notability masking and as a stand alone article, there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. As such, article fails general notability guidelines and should be deleted. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ditch the Label (which reads like a press release itself, but anyway). And that photo is just lacking lens flare and rainbows - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely disagree about the photo. It would look perfect for an album cover.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The choices on the table, it seems to me, are either Keep or Merge to Ditch the Label. It does seem that this is a public figure as a leading anti-bullying activist. See, for example, THIS PIECE from Huffington Post, by Bibek Bhandari, "Liam Hackett: 'IIt Does Get Better.'" Carrite (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think I could go with a redirect, but not a keep. I will change my !vote above. The Huffington Post piece is simply a recreation of all of the other articles and doesn't really address anything other than he was bullied in school and that he founded the organization. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above, he is NOT a public figure. Just because he was bullied and has talked about it does not mean that he is a public figure. He does not merit his own page. Ditch The Label however does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, the article may be short but it does provide sufficient information about him. It gives me information that I would like to know about him as the article acts very well as the centre of providing information. I think that the article should not be merged with the orgnisation as it may cause some minor confusion. Personal thoughts. He can pass as being a notable person though, that's why I'm here anyway. 113.23.129.7 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for the !vote. Do you have any policy based (Wikipedia policy that is) reasons to keep the article? Causing confusion would not necessarily be a reason to keep the article. There is more than enough information about him under the organization article. Not sure a standalone article is needed.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ditch the Label. The article on Liam Hackett has no third-party references. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
Redirect as suggested. The organization is more notable than he is--there are a few third party sources for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. In reference to the above 'Strong Keep'. This is tragic! Just because someone is the founder of something does not mean that they should have their own page! "the only exposure of him (Liam Hackett) to public is only through Ditch the Label. " So why keep it if it's the ONLY thing? Greater people who have achieved more have not got wikipedia pages? This is incredibly self serving and I would not be surprised if he made the page himself. Why should the public read about him? Ditch The Label should be read about NOT him. Moreover, the latest addition of 'Liam has been INVITED to write papers' ... It's against wikipedia's guidelines to write about stuff (i.e. papers) that don't exist yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 11 May 2013 — 2.25.1.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep – I originally reviewed the article and thought at the time that Liam Hackett passed the notability test because of references in Huffington Post and Pink News and the fact that he was interviewed on Radio 1, which implies that someone at the BBC thought he was a suitable spokesperson on the subject of bullying for national radio. Yes, he's synonymous with and notable because of the organisation he founded, but the same could be said of Michele Elliott (Kidscape) and Camila Batmanghelidjh (Kids Company) – albeit they are more established figures. I think WP:POTENTIAL does come into this and I don't really understand the argument (or the source) that WP:BLP bests that in this case, so I'd welcome clarification of that point. There is plenty that could be done to improve the page and address the many valid concerns expressed – for instance, removing all links to his marketing company and paring back hard. Deletion seems the nuclear option and Wikipedia does say on the subject of deletion that if a page can be improved this should be solved through regular editing. Is this really such a basket case that it can't be remediated through judicious editing? Finally, I don't think the points about the choice of picture have particular weight or relevance. Libby norman (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Comment to above I believe that were you to trim this article back you'd be best with one line: "Liam Hackett founded Ditch the Label". That's all you would have. Shall I go about making this change? Comments about him being bullied offer no use to the wikipedia community. Nor does "invited to write essays". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ Duplicate vote struck. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Comment: now trimmed back to the facts it barely seems worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.1.14 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Not seeing a significant justification for why the article qualifies for notability now. I agree there could be potential in the future, but at the current time the bullying is the cause for this charity to be founded and would be better served under the Ditch the Label article. No objections to significant development of the BLP aspects in the future target being the justification for a WP:SPINOUT that removes the redirect, but people are probably going to be searching the name in the context of the charity. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Golden[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:NN local politician. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Illia Connell (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, that being said I did not observe any mentions where the subject was given in-depth significant coverage, therefore I am of the opinion that the subject has not passed WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Now the reason I am not strongly supporting deletion is that the subject can be considered locally notable to the county where the subject is the Sheriff, and if this the case a redirect to the Sheriff Department maybe appropriate if the department has a list of sheriffs embedded in it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No list of sherriff but Monmouth County, New Jersey contains the one relevant piece of information already. Otherwise, fails WP:POLITICIAN and general guidelines.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sheriffs aren't notable for doing routine sheriffy things; you'd need substantial out-of-town coverage for notability, and that's not present. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ray^Talk 16:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and lacks the WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 08:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 05:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pet de Kat Krewe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article has been tagged for at least six months for notability, but I can find nothing online that shows notability other than brief mentions over a decade ago. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells of WP:PROMOTION. Other than member pages, no substantive visibility, and no news coverage.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Save. An [| archived debate] dated April 2006 of a proposed deletion of the article determined page may stay. Contributors to the article have also responded to wiki request and established notability by adding several secondary sources about the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.212.233 (talk)

Save. References cited demonstrate the subject of article is genuine, if a bit self promotional. Save it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.138.65 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to assert the significance or accomplishments of the crew. EternalFlare (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeming WP:DUCK canvassing or puppetry here at this AFD. In terms of the article itself, it's overly promotional in nature, the links are spammy and full of press releases, and lacks a credible assertion to notability along with no WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 08:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/cleveland_metro/police-source-multiple-pregnancies-miscarriages-among-missing-women-found-in-cleveland-home

[2] "AICN HORROR looks at new horrors APOLLO 18! DON'T LET HIM IN! ATTACK OF THE VEGAN ZOMBIES! AMERICAN SCREAM KING! MURDER OBSESSION and a late look at HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE)!!!". Ain't It Cool News. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 May 2013.

[1]

[2]