Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 4#Polymodality

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 February	5 February >

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 redirect all to List of historical states of Georgia. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian republics

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

These lists are anachronistic and unnotable conjunctures compiled by one (now indeffed) editor. The states included are all historical states (aside of course from the current Georgia) selected because they were in the area that Georgia is now, and fit in a certain historical narrative (note for example that the Kingdom of Abkhazia has been changed with a pipelink to a Georgian language name). The political differences are quite arbitrary, especially considering these lists span hundreds of years. Even if they were all in one list, that list would remain just a choice picking of a variety of discontinuous historical states to prove some modern political point. CMD (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, History of Georgia (country) is good enough to cover this topic without any original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ all as List of predecessor states of Georgia (country) or some such name. Since the states will have had rulers with titles in local languages, the translation as "dukes", "princes", etc. is probably a matter of opinion. I do not accept that History of Georgia (country) is adequate byu itself. A list article will serve to pick up all the historical articles and can be converted to a table which will provide a quick outline of what states existed and at what periods. This is likely to be useful as a navigation tool. We certainly do not need any of the present list articles, which provide no useable information, except that an article exists. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging doesn't deal with the issue that this list exists for a political point. There is no historical lineage (the kind that would make a state a predecessor) connecting most of these states to Georgia (the exception perhaps being the post-WWI republic, although it was absorbed into the USSR, which isn't listed in any of these lists), and none of them followed the modern political boundaries. Two arbitrarily linked factors determine this list. 1) The state was independent 2) The state was more or less centred in any territory that makes up today's Georgia. Taking a bunch of separate states (although some were connected amongst themselves) and putting them in a list, excluding many of the other entities that existed around the area and deliberately skipping large chunks of history is not useful navigation. CMD (talk) 16:42, 3 February 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A list or timeline of states sharing a geographical area seems a reasonable list, a valid way of summarising the political history of the area now occupied by Georgia. It would complement Outline of Georgia (country)#History of Georgia, which currently contains nothing except a link to History of Georgia (country). The list could include larger entities like the USSR, etc. I don't think it's helpful to accuse people of trying to make political points, and we should focus on the merits of the articles and how they could be improved. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A list of states sharing this geographical area would be much more expansive than this list, including for example the Soviet Union, the Ottoman Empire, the Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity), the Safavid dynasty, among many many others. It would be massive, and I don't think it would be that useful as a navigation tool. However, if a list of states is the preferred option, I suggest a list of states in the Caucasus in general, not just one modern entity, would be a better topic. CMD (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you start clicking on the links within each list, you will see that these lists are navigational devices. I agree that a merge to a single big list with a universal name is appropriate if someone wants to take that on. Carrite (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of historical states of Georgia, which includes many or most of the states on these four individual lists, and fulfills a similar function. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all to List of historical states of Georgia. That is the sort of article that I was looking for in my previous merge vote above. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:22, 11 February 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). Alexf^(talk) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Loflin

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

This article fails to meet the standards in WP:BIO. The person is not notable, and there are few (zero?) independent references. This page violates the WP:SOAP as it appears to be a menas of promotion. Rappel66 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I can find brief mentions, such as articles mentioning him announcing scholarships, I can't find any significant coverage of him with any biographical details. The group he founded seems notable, but not him as an individual. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you mean he's not the quarterback?? :-) Unimpressive credentials, and lack of Ghits makes me wonder. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.nscs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Steve-Bio-2.pdf and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 6 February 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. After a double re-listed and nearing the end of the third time frame, the general consensus remains falls to keep. While limited reliable sources are available, the editors involved feel they warrant a keep outcome. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Lake Metro

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

Same as other, a google search of ""Salt Lake Metro" magazine Salt Lake City" reveals no sources. This one is harder to search for, but I couldn't see anyone. Source in article is no longer accessible but I'm not sure it offered anything more than regional/municipal significance of any kind. v/r - T P 03:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several source searches in Google News and Google News archive have provided some sources (e.g. see this custom search), but the depth of overall coverage may be borderline to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, per WP:N. Technically, in WP:N, "sources" typically means two or more. Sources found that appear to be about the newspaper itself, as opposed to passing mentions and quotes from newspaper staff, include [1], [2], both from the The Salt Lake Tribune. They're both paywalled, which does not disqualify them per WP:PAYWALL, but it would be nice to view the entire articles to better-ascertain their depth of coverage. Additionally, most of the Tribune articles that have mentions are paywalled, so I'm unable to ascertain the depth of coverage in these too. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals‎. There is also no reason to delete when a list article is available. Insomesia (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and agree with analysis by Insomesia (talk · contribs), at the very least redirect to List of LGBT periodicals. — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do either of you want to provide sources? My argument is that the article falls entirely short of WP:V and WP:GNG. What policy/guideline supports keeping? If you want to redirect it, I don't really care. Redirects are cheap.--v/r - TP 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:Before could you explain the steps you took before taking this to AfD? Insomesia (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per consensus, WP:Before is not a policy. But since you ask, you can look in my deletion statement: "a google search of ""Salt Lake Metro" magazine Salt Lake City" reveals no sources." The burden is on those wishing to keep content to provide sources.--v/r - T P 00:37, 16 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that the two Salt Lake Tribune articles alone are enough to warrant an individual article, but a look at them via Highbeam shows they indeed contain in-depth coverage on this publication. Gong show 23:52, 19 January 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 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be difficult to find independent articles with significant coverage about a publication. Here, we have two in-depth articles in the Salt Lake Tribune, both of which I've read on Highbeam, plus an article titled "Paper War: Is Salt Lake City gay enough for two biweekly gay newspapers?" in the Salt Lake City Weekly. Unfortunately, this third article is not available online, but the title makes it clear that the Salt Lake Metro was one of the two publications receiving significant coverage. I see no good reason to delete the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cullen, the two articles in Highbeam are both within a month of this publication's launch. The first one certainly is trivial. The second one is a bit more significant, but I wonder if the fact that it was right after the launch lent some attention.--v/r - TP 04:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see the coverage as significant, and more than trivial. Other opinions may vary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, I used the wrong word. I meant the first one is routine, not trivial.--v/r - T P 16:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cullen328's analysis and with xis opinion that the coverage is sufficiently substantive to show notability. ---Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 5 February 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. Even if AfD is requested on grounds of possible notability, we cannot have a copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Order of the Sword and Shield

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

Procedural nomination: A number of editors have raised concerns that this qualifies as an A7. There has also been some opposition to the tag. I feel like a 7 day discussion would be better, it certainly doesn't hurt. I'm neutral until I can look into it more. Ryan Vesey 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Not only does the organization fail WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, the article does not even assert importance. This appears to be the full membership of the organization and there appears to be only one chapter. At best, I believe the WP:SPA that created the article is using Wikipedia for promotion.

The LinkedIn Group for this club was created yesterday by Jeffrey P. Grossmann (whose LinkedIn profile is linked to from the article) and has exactly 1 member - himself. Far too coincidental not to be part of a social media promotion initiative on the part of Grossmann and our SPA editor, Social media promotion? Just because we create a page on Linkedin means we are social media promoting? I do not understand your use of the term "coincidental"? Are you implying we are on a marketing spree to sell something? If so, please tell me what we can sell. We could use some money to get a "real" website, not google sites. Grossmaj (talk · contribs), IMHO.

Note that there are many similarly named organizations that are not this one and have been mistaken for it including:

Strategic Order of the Sword and Shield
Most Glorious Order of the Sword and Shield
Royal Order of the Sword and Shield
Sacred And Mystical Order Of The Sword And Shield

Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental information: Article creator has confirmed "This was just an avenue to inform the world of a very important and noteworthy academic movement..." Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally tagged this for speedy as an A7, which was contested. Unfortunately I was googling for the wrong thing ("Order of the Sword") and I should have been more careful. Upon realizing that the CSD had been contested and the editor commented on my talk page I realized my apparent mistake. However, after a day or so I have been unable to satisfactorily source this to any notability. One of the things that threw me off immediately was the Google Sites homepage, which no organization would be caught using instead of a real website. After perusing said page I can see that this is a student organization from St. John's University which has been lucky enough to have a few notable people involved with it, but that doesn't mean anything much in terms of notability for the group itself. And the main issue was that I confused it with this, which is an entirely different thing. So right now there simply aren't enough reliable third-party sources that could help establish notability. Actually there are none whatsoever. I agree with Toddst1 that this is indeed a clear A7 candidate, and his deletion was entirely correct. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________

To be fair FreRangeFrog, this organization is considered notable by many non"googable" sources. US Congressman, just do not give up their time to honor students for academic achievments everyday. I do not understand how you can be so objective and use words like "lucky enough" and "caught using of a real website". You are right, we are not an organization that makes money, therefore we have to use free resources like google sites. I am glad you are the "fair and accurate" editor that will help decide the fate of this article. You have clearly demonstrated a lack of objectivity in your pursuits, of which I have duly noted. The fact that you were ready to delete this article after "googling the wrong page" shows your devotion to objective investigative research. The Department of Homeland Security wrote a nice piece about our organization in their monthly news letter to their employees. Unfortunately, you cannot google an internal document. I would be willing to send it to you though. Your arguement that "we were lucky enough to have a few notable people involved with it, but that doesn't mean anything" is also a bit confusing. Despite your thoughts, this has been a very noteworthy project. Our guest speaker at this year's national honor society induction will be Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Another "lucky" achievement for the Order of the Sword and Shield I guess.

On another note. Have you looked at any other article entry (literally hundreds) of academic honor societies in Wikipedia. There are no cites and/or references for nearly 2/3's of them other then their school's own websites. And I couldnt find anything about them after a simple google search either, other then their Wiki article and their website. I am glad to see we can apply equal objectivity across the entire spectrum of Wikipedia, also duly noted.

_____________________--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grossmaj (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended, these discussions tend to be like that. Don't take it personally. In truth if I had figured out my mistake from the beginning we would not be having this conversation since the article would have been deleted outright, because your organization obviously doesn't meet our notability guidelines. As to your questions about my remarks, I will point you to a very specific guideline we have: WP:NOTINHERITED. You'll realize why I say that while you have been "lucky" (to use a term) in that notable people have been directly or indirectly associated with your organization, notability is not inherited. Thus, even assuming that you invited Barack Obama or The Pope to speak at one of your ceremonies, you would still not rate an article. We look for secondary and tertiary reliable sources that tell us that other notable people, organizations and media outlets consider yours to be important. As of now you have none of that, which is why we are having this discussion. Again, I apologize if you feel offended by my comments, I never intended to suggest you were trying to deceive us. There's no need for that now that the details (or lack thereof) of your organization have been more closely scrutinized, and you have unambiguously stated that this was just an attempt to promote your order. We have another guideline: WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps in the future the Order of the Sword and Shield will be notable and you won't have to go through all of this. I do realize it can be a bit overwhelming. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Mostly directed at Gorssmaj) At this moment, it's looking like the article's here a bit too soon as FreeRangeFrog says. I can only get a clip of what is here, but it looks like a society that was originally local but is becoming national. Once it gets adequate coverage a new article can be created. The point is moot for now, I've requested deletion under criteria G12 as it is a copyright violation from the website. It could be restored if the website author released the material under a valid license, but I would advise against it. The A7 tag does seem to be correct and the material, like any material copied from an official website, is too promotional for encyclopedic purposes. If some big name academic sources or news agencies start talking about this society, leave me a note and I can see about helping you turn it into an article. For the time being, you can work on collecting sources whenever they appear at User:Grossmaj/Sandbox. Ryan Vesey 00:10, 5 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 03:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tivi (disambiguation)

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

There are only two legitimate entries. The artist can be hatnoted from the place. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of -related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a third meaning as well as a link to TV in the See also section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. I missed those sneaky Tivi people. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 6 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott Studio

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)

Fails WP:CORP. I can't find any significant coverage online, though there are a few mentions in directories. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There's only one word for articles like this. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may have some promotional writing in it, but I don't think it counts as a page that is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" per CSD G11. The promotional parts could be fixed by editing, but there's no way to fix a lack of notability. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Haber (footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks suspiciously like a vanity piece for all the superlatives employed in the article. The subject has not quite made it to qualify for a WP entry. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement with User:GiantSnowman that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and has no other WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 07:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daniel Haber has not yet played on any professional league, which is enough to fail WP:NFOOTBALL#2; also, he fails the first point because he has yet to appear on any FIFA sanctioned international match. Apart from that, I see that the sources found on the article are not comprehensive enough to establish some sort of notability of the topic. I did a search on Google and found several interesting matches (like this, this, this, where he received an award from his college, and this, which looks like a depth coverage). Although this may be disguised as non-trivial coverage, I find it to be just passing mentions (apart from the interview, that has no weigh, and the latter link that does), and a more in-depth study of his career has yet to be seen, so that we can see if he meets or not GNG. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:18, 10 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WILDsound Film Festival

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

This is a nomination by user Wikipatrolwatch (talk · contribs) whose A7 and G11 speedy nominations on this article I declined, and who accepted my offer to do the nomination process. I give below the reason presented on the nominator's talk page:

The mandate for Wikipedia is clear, it is an Encyclopedia. As such, articles that are not notable AND promotional do not belong here. I challenge the claim that article supplies "credible assertion of significance or importance", can you quote at least ONE single line/or paragraph? I agree with you that the article reads rather as the festival's manifesto than as an encyclopedia article. Can you quote at least ONE single line/or paragraph, that make it not irretrievably promotional? If you cannot, I couldn't either. However, there is a much greater issue at stake here, especially with regards to the non-existing sources, and accompanying time-frame, i.e. five years:

The tag already placed, on the page proves the point I am making exactly; quote: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (October 2008)."

Five (!) years later, there are still no sufficient references (see References). A sufficient reference would include at least one single mentioning in a newspaper, magazine, or journal (Times, Forbes, Economist) which is not the case here. If it were a local festival, Canadian local, there would be at least one mentioning, or citation in a local, Canadian publication, such as Thestar, Globe, Times, National Post. Since, there is none (after 5 years), and I have found none, after researching several hours, I see no reason, why it should NOT be deleted.— Wikipatrolwatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I express no view myself. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article does not pass muster. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 25 January 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 05:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Concur with Wikipatrolwatch, JohnCD and Whpq; No significant coverage in reliable sources. No primary, no secondary sources (Searched on Google, Bing, Yahoo Search; Result: Nada. The sourcing in the article does not pass muster. -- Editor400 (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)— Editor400 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking !vote from a sock of Wikipatrolwatch. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable film festival. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not sufficient to just assert that it is notable. The notability needs to be supported with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I was unable to find such sources, but if you are aware of such coverage, please bring them forward. -- Whpq (talk) 21:52, 31 January 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Comment only (not meant to influence vote, but result of additional research, thank you); After doing some more research, I discovered three objective facts that should be considered, in addition to the aformentioned issues above. Fact one, the website in question is designed like a SEO landing page, please have a look here [http://www.wildsound.ca/] Fact two, when you look up a specific entry of this 'film festival,' it links to mainstream cinema films, and not independent cinema, as it promotes itself, here is just one example [http://www.wildsound-filmmaking-feedback-events.com/conviction.html] Fact three, there are several instances in which people have submitted (and paid submission fees) to enter this venue, but never heard back, again, just one example, here [http://writerofmoviescripts.blogspot.ca/2011/02/wildsound-film-festival-did-not-give.html] Thus, in addition to the lack of any independent news coverage extended over 5 years, this platform appears like an SEO page. It gets additional traffic from being listed on Wikipedia, which I could not find anywhere in the Wiki guidelines, as being the mandate of Wikipedia. Should A7 and G11 be reconsidered? Please do take the time to look at the evidence provided. Thank you. Also added to talk page, for further discussion. Signed.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply The crapiness of their website has no bearing on notability; nor does straying from their mission statement; nor do complaints posted in a blog. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - ReplyThank you for your reply Whpq. But do you think there is an inherent logic in the overall argument, as presented, i.e. a combination, or sum-of-things, which would warrant a speedy A7 or G11? Anyone can objectively see that there are no existing independent sources (five years later) by doing a thorough Google search (which I did). The point I am making is: This 'article' is neither about a film festival, nor is it an encyclopedic entry. Does denying a speedy A7/G11 or constantly relisting this, change that fact? Signed: Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply - A7 is valid only if there is no credible assertion of notability. Statements that moderators in the past have included notable people in the film industry is (in my opinion) sufficient. As for G11, if you have to go to through all that research to determine that the article is promotional, then I would say that the "unambiguous" portion of the "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" has not been met. Basically, if you need to build up a case for speedy deletion, then it likely isn't a good candidate for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and no reliable sources to assert notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:39, 11 February 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 So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(U.S._season_9)#Top_20_Finalists. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus "Glitch" Spencer

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

Reality TV personality of questionable notability. Recently removed 2 "references". One being a link to the season page here on wikipedia, the other being a link to the person page on the "So You Think You Can Dance" wikkia. Article has been taged with "want more BLP sources" and "relies on primary sources" since October, the article's creation date. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to So_You_Think_You_Can_Dance_(U.S._season_9)#Top_20_Finalists - He is from the recent season and Google News provided two recent results which both mention him for this and it seems he hasn't received attention for anything else. This news article supports the information about him including being signing to Xcel Talent Agency but he hasn't achieved anything else notable and is only known as a SYTYCD contestant. Most dancers become teachers and work with some notable productions or people so I have no prejudice for a new article when he is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:32, 5 February 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, default to keep. The discussion below suggests that although the current article in discussion is about the same topic as the article deleted last year, the actual content and sourcing are substantially different. I have verified this indeed by looking at the deleted page history. In light of changes to circumstances since the previous deletion, CSD G4 does not apply. There is a clear split of opinion of whether the article satisfies inclusion guidelines, so I'm closing this as NC default to keep. Der yck C. 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper

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

Looks like the same list that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IFFHS World's Best Goalkeeper. No analysis, primary sources -- just a copy of a couple of lists on the IFFHS website. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acticle was updated. Reliable sources were added. Easy passes WP:GNG. 11 interwikies. Otherwise AfD is not a substitution for cleanup. NickSt (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much has changed since the last AfD - the organisation is notable, this particular award is not. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why this award is not notable? There are many reliable secondary sources: (Goal.com) (Football Italia) (Buenos Aires Herald) and so on. NickSt (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel it is "significant" coverage - at most this should be redirect to the main IFFHS article. Giant Snowman 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: It need not be the main topic of the source material. You can see many refs in the article. Significance is enough. NickSt (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NFOOTBALL does not specify about football awards (which is what the article is about) so GNG should be followed here. There appears to be sufficient sources to fulfill it so the article should remain. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. The article has not changed sufficiently since the last afd, which was subsequently endorsed by DRV. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protest. First AfD was for another (not my) article without sources. It is not a repost. It is a new article with new good sources. Many interwikies. Was added reliable sources. Was deleted unneeded information. NickSt (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your article - see WP:OWN. Giant Snowman 11:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what? Of course, not my, but I rewrited this article for showing WP:GNG. And see WP:PERSONAL. NickSt (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you say it is "my article" - that implies OWNership. Raising that point is not a personal attack in the slightest. Giant Snowman 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss about article, not personality. Why do you want to delete the article with 11 interwikies and many reliable sources? NickSt (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of interwikies? Not relevant in the slightest. Reliable sources? Does not mean it is notable. Giant Snowman 11:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See other football awards. Not each award (very few numbers) has such press coverage as this. It is a main football award for goalkeepers. For example, The Guardian reporter mentions this award many years after polling. [3]. NickSt (talk) 11:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. But if this article will be deleted due to WP:GNG, we must delete all articles from this category. NickSt (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't - we'll only have to delete those that actually fail GNG. Giant Snowman 12:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Fail GNG with such number of secondary sources?! Then I don't understand GNG. Or you. NickSt (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of sources, but their significance. The sources listed in the article are routine sports journalism (i.e. not significant) and are about the individual players who have won the award as opposed to the award itself. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you don't wait to see info about this award in political journalism. I am also. Of cource, sports sources are present for sports award. NickSt (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could have 100 sources about something, but if they are basic and do not cover the subject in any great depth then they are worthless and would not meet GNG. Giant Snowman 13:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Association football trophies and awards. Show me the article with more significant coverage (with exception of the Golden Ball, or course). NickSt (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS! Giant Snowman 13:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive. Show me example of the similar article with not basic sources and which cover the subject in any great depth in your opinion. I want to look for. NickSt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Ballon d'Or (1956–2009) or FIFA Ballon d'Or. Receive plenty of coverage, yea-after-year - this does not. Giant Snowman 13:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly: (with exception of the Golden Ball, or course). Maybe Footballer of the Year – Israel or Estonian Silverball? Or other items from {{National Footballer of the Year}}. Tell me please your opinion, what articles from this category we must delete, and what to keep. And why? NickSt (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, for God's sake, please understand - other articles existing and potentially being non-notable does NOT mean that this article is notable! Giant Snowman 14:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, of course, I understand it. But I write such articles and I need to understand what sport awards are notable and what is not. Give me answer to my question: What articles from this category we must delete, and what to keep. And why? NickSt (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per last discussion, particularly pertinent the comment "nothing more than the presentation of a series of lists published by an independent organisation on their website" by user Suriel1981. I should add that per WP:GNG "coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion". C 679 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD was for another article. That article was only big voting lists copypasted by the anonym without secondary sources. It is not a repost. It is a new article with new good reliable sources. See carefully sources in the new version. NickSt (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD was for a topic on the same subject, as we can see from the title of the deletion discussion. The article in its current state is without doubt two lists with the added prose that it is awarded every January. The fact that The Guardian give it a trivial mention and the Buenos Aires Herald have reported the winner in one year does little more than corroborate the most recent winner and establish no basis for an article here. C 679 16:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a main award for goalkeepers in the world. Tomorrow I will write another article about sports awards and you will say "not notable". Give me the explanation of the borders between notable and non-notable sports awards from Category:Association football trophies and awards. We must delete Czech Footballer of the Year? Or other items from {{National Footballer of the Year}}? Or not? NickSt (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to me to explain notability to you; the onus is on anyone proposing to keep an article to establish its notability. The fact you removed the speedy deletion tag from the article seven times would suggest you feel the article would be deleted should you not intervene. Clearly the arguments for deleting the article, including G4, speak for themselves, so it would appear there is no need for further comment. C 679 17:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the previous AfD was on the exact same (non-notable) subject. Giant Snowman 14:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, previous AfD was for another big voting list without secondary sources. Now such sources are present in the article. Goal.com, Buenos Aires Herald, The Guardian, Bleacher Report, Real Madrid website, RSSSF and so on. NickSt (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:STICK. Giant Snowman 15:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was canvassed for my opinion here [4], along with others who expressed a keep opinion at another AfD. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt but Oppose G4 - G4'ing this is just going to buy us more time-wasting pain when such a deletion inevitably ends up at WP:DRV. There are "sources" where previously none existed which calls into question any suggestion that the article is "sufficiently identical and unimproved". We should debate the validity of those sources here, sure, but I don't think G4 is a good idea. On the article itself, a simplified list article - winners of the ... - might serve to support the parent article in a functional sense, with the award itself explained in the parent organisation article. But an article about the award itself doesn't seem justified. That is, without substantially improved sources. Most of them seem to be coverage of individuals who have won the award in question. There are plenty of notable organisations that give awards to notable people. The organisations are notable, the people are notable but the awards aren't really notable in their own right, in my opinion, unless they have received significant coverage in their own right. Stalwart111 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It did end up in DRV 34 days ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 1. Considering the article is identical and the DRV, I think this is a textbook CSD#G4. Mkdw ^talk 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, was aware of that DRV (I commented there, too) which is what I was getting at (in a round-about way) with my suggestion that certain people might have an appetite for running to DRV if it is G4'd. Better to build a solid consensus (I thought) and be done with it (including seasoning). It seems all too easy to claim "sufficient difference" (despite admin confirmation of similarity/sameness) in cases where there "'might" be some and such an excercise would be a massive waste of time. I was willing to AGF and supported userfication/recreation but it seems my faith was misplaced. To be clear, my opposition to G4 is not on the basis that I think the article should be kept instead; rather that I think it might allow a way back in and I would rather see this done with. Stalwart111 04:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ ~~While the first AfD was 8 months ago, the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 1 is 34 days old. Immediately deletion under CSD#G4. Admin confirms article is a duplicate of the first AfD.~~ No comment since CSD was opposed. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've declined the request for a speedy deletion because I think the addition of sources, plus pruning and other changes, means this is not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the old article. The AfD should proceed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for me, this one's a no-brainer. The sources listed in the references section alone are enough the satisfy the general notability guideline, especially as its being covered by outlets as diverse as the Bleacher Report, the Buenos Aires Herald, Real Madrid and The Guardian. Naturally, these sources are reporting about who won the award - that's the nature of the beast as far as most sports awards go. Is it any different to coverage received by, say, the PFA Players' Player of the Year? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Bald Zebra is one of three users, alongside User:Keresaspa and User:Oldelpaso [5] [6] [7] who were targeted in a votestacking campaign by the author of the article, having !voted "Keep" at a similar AfD created as part of this disruption. This behaviour is being discussed at WP:ANI. C 679 08:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, he was canvassed, but the message itself was fairly neutral - it was the "invite list" (the keep voters) that is of concern, right? He also wasn't notified of the ANI thread as far as I can see. It's quite possible he didn't know he was being canvassed. Agree it's poor form, but possibly not on Zebra's part. Yeah? Stalwart111 08:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no suggestion Bald Zebra has acted inappropriately. The concern is that he was canvassed alongside the other two users who !voted "keep" in the other AfD (I think this is what you mean by the "invite list") and I think it's worthwhile to note that here. C 679 08:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For sure! Just didn't want anyone to misinterpret said worthwhile note (formatted as a comment after Zebra's !vote) as a criticism of Zebra, which didn't seem the intention. All good! Stalwart111 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references are notes of somebody receiving the award. Do any of them constitute "subtanstial coverage" of the award itself? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a single above delete vote has a valuable rational attached to it. The opinion of lack of notablility was dismissed through sourcing and the appeals to authority are meaningless. There are many other similar sporting awards with articles, and as the essay WP:OSE states that "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". Being that there is no reason to delete this article, I suggest it not be deleted. Sepsis II (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true, it should be consistent but (as has been pointed out) a number of the other awards pointed to may also be candidates for deletion. It's not a strong argument to say that this article should be retained because other similar subjects of questionable notability have articles. OSE remains an argument to avoid during deletion discussions for that very reason. A number of people have already stated that, in their opinion, the subject does not meet WP:GNG - that about as policy-based an argument as you're going to get. The WP:BURDEN is on content creators and those supporting retention to explain (in a way that builds WP:CONSENSUS) how the subject is notable. Stalwart111 00:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Eh, I'd say it has some notability as seen by the variety of sources, though really, this AfD is only about whether this award deserves its own page as if deleted the information will re-appear in the mother organization's article. Can I ask that someone make all the tables on the IFFHS's page collapsed? If all the tables are collapsed perhaps length wouldn't be an issue and a redirect to the re-created subsection could be agreeable to all? Sepsis II (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also true. And as I said in my original note above - this might have been better as a list of people who have won the award, rather than an article about the award, with content about the award itself on the parent page. Not sure if a collapsed list would be WP:MOS-compliant but it seems like a sensible idea on the face of it. Stalwart111 02:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate list article, which also exists in many other languages. Sufficient independent sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Bywater

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

West Ham United youth player. Has yet to play in a fully professional league or senior international so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 19:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Funny ^Pika! 19:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played in a fully pro league. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am in agreement with User:GiantSnowman that the subject does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and has no other WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 07:45, 10 February 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 NHL on-ice officials. Redirect and salt origional ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lee (referee)

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

Non-notable person NE Ent 18:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability beyond "he's a referee" not established. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Edit: Not opposed to redirect. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials - I'm not aware of any guideline for referees (perhaps there should be one?), and this one doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, and is also a vandalism magnet to boot. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials. Regardless of outcome - keep, delete or redirect - I would also suggest edit protection be added. Reso lute 19:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Reso lute 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Officials in major professional sports have generally been considered notable. WP:NHOCKEY substitutes the word coaches for players. I would assume the same for officials. -DJSasso (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. It does substitute "coached"/"managed" for "players" for coach/manager notability, but it does not mention referees or officials at all - quite likely deliberately. NHL referees simply don't rise to the level of recognition of a MLB ump or a NFL ref; aside from the WP:BLP1E cases of "The Ref is Blind", they're pretty much invisible, and this is a clear WP:GNG failure as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If referee/official is not substituted for player it would appear to be an oversight more than deliberate. If you look at the other sports, association football, rugby union and rugby league all specifically mention referees, while baseball and cricket use umpire and American football uses the term figure. At the Wikiproject rugby we assume that any referee that has reffed a professional game is notable (and don't have too much trouble finding sources to back it up). If nothing else the wording of WP:NHOCKEY should probably be changed. AIRcorn (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This gets back into the "presumed notable" aspect of SNGs. And the problem here is that I can't find any in-depth coverage of Lee. Most on-ice officials similarly lack coverage. It is far easier to assume coverage for a player than it is an official. On that basis, I wouldn't necessarily support the argument that the SNG should treat officials equal to players. Reso lute 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, NHL officials are not equivalent to baseball umpires or football/soccer/football/rugby/football officials. The zebras on the ice are essentially anonymous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My take on SNG is that it is a aid for those of us that don't know enough about a subject. For example if I come across a ice hockey player with poor sourcing, but see that he has played for a professional team I would know that sources do probably exist and not bother nominating it for deletion (not that I do that much anyway). However once a debate is started I do think that GNG should be satisfied exclusive of the SNG. That was partly why I just marked my above comment as a comment.

A google news search brings up lots of small mentions.[8] Maybe not enough to completely satisfy GNG, but still more than a lot of other debates I have seen here (the earliest ones go back ten years so he has obviously been around a while). There are probably reliable non-news ice hockey sites that mention him too (sorry not my sport so I don't know where to look, plus its not helped as there is a player with the same name). Also looking at the List of NHL on-ice officials most officials have an article so a positive WP:otherstuffexists argument could apply. Either way I am not saying this should be kept, it just doesn't seem like an obvious delete.

I am curious as to why there is so little coverage of ice hockey referees and why they are deemed less notable than football, cricket and baseball. Judging by the previous version of the current article they still make controversial calls so must have an impact on the game. AIRcorn (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a lot of ways, I would say it is NHL league policy to try and make its on ice officials "invisible". That is, in fact, a specific reason why the league removed each official's name bar and replaced it with a uniform number about 10-12 years ago. There are certainly some very notable referees, such as Kerry Fraser, but for the most part, I think the default position in the NHL is that if you don't know who the referee is, he's doing a good job. That tends to mean that officials only really make the press when they err. The end result for us is a bunch of potential WP:COATRACKs. That, incidentally, is why we are at this AFD. Reso lute 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe a note should be applied to WP:NHOCKEY saying that referees have to satisfy the GNG. Probably the wrong place to be discussing it here anyway, it was just a discrepancy I noticed with the other sports and obviously something other hockey editors thought too (pretty sure DJSasso is a big hockey editor). FWIW I am fine with a redirect if no sources are presented that show significant coverage. AIRcorn (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aircon & DJSasso little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 02:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangesad (talk • contribs) 03:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think NHOCKEY needs to be changed at all; it'd beg the question as to how far we needed to go in addressing notability criteria for everyone connected with the sport. Front office executives? Journalists? No, I'm comfortable with on-ice officials relying on the GNG. The John D'Amicos, Don Koharskis and Kerry Frasers of the world would pass, and the rest wouldn't ... much the same as in any other sport, where a handful of officials gain notoriety, and the rest are invisible.
In any event, though, that's a discussion for other venues, not for here. Since NHOCKEY doesn't address on-ice officials, there can be no question about "passing" or "failing" it. I don't see that the subject passes the GNG. Ravenswing 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials and salt the original. KillerChihuahua 18:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Capital idea - changing my !vote above accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't salting prevent creation? Or does it mean full protection in this context? NE Ent 03:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote as well. And I was under that impression about SALT as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While NHL players get a free pass in terms of notability, under our standing special guidelines officials do not. This is a clear GNG fail beyond that. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 10 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shahabuddin

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

Does not comply with notability guidelines per WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:PROF. E4024 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first thing I would like to address is that WP:PROF and WP:DIPLOMAT are both notability guidelines, not requirements, this really disregards any arguments using these guidelines since this proves this article isn't in any way violating WP required policy.

If it is to be accepted that these guidelines are in fact requirements I would like to address this article in relation to the WP:DIPLOMAT guideline second. The guideline states that 'Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources. Sufficient reliable documentation of their particular role is required.', I have since added the appropriate reference to clarify where the information about Syed Shahabuddin's involvement in the Shah Bano case and his opposition to the Demolition of Babri Masjid. As everyone can see the reference for this opinion is valid, it is from his own website, but isn't from a 'reliable secondary source' this therefore removes any requirement for 'sufficient reliable documentation'. I have mentioned these two cases because I assume they are what the nominator is talking about. Really these aren't even diplomatic events since they were internal crisis within India. There is no indication in the article that Shahabuddin has 'participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance'. Perhaps if the nominator knows of such events he could add them to the article - this would be much more constructive.

Now I will thirdly address the point raised regarding WP:PROF. I have since removed the text describing Shahabuddin as a 'university teacher' since although his website says he was, I can't find any information anywhere else that backs this up . This removes the relevance of WP:PROF.

Finally I would like address this deletion in general. I have quickly looked at the contributions of E4024 and have noticed that this editor has only recently returned to WP after a period of about nine months. While I am in no way questioning this editors knowledge of WP policies, I would suggest that he/she may be a little to eager too make major edits or start processes such as deletion. I am assuming that this deletion was made in good faith but if this editor reads the article I think he/she will find it is a good article and deleting it would be a negative thing for WP. The editor may also like to know that this article was requested officially on WP and has been created due to this request. It is highly demoralizing for myself, and I'm sure many other editors, to create a requested article after extensive research, write it and rewrite it, add structure and references etc. for a fellow editor to then nominate it for deletion. Of course I agree that unsuitable, inappropriate or articles that break WP policy should be deleted but I can't help but feel the reasons for this nomination are minor and actually non-existent. Josh1024 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Josh1024 Since when are you in WP Josh? BTW I saw a note on your TP about you and WP deletion procedure, I mean before you archived it. Best. --E4024 (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To E4024 As you can see I have crossed through my comments about you personally in case they have offended you, to be honest I don't understand what your message above means and I can't tell if your being sarcastic or whatever. I have no intention of making a big deal out of this. I wasn't trying to hide anything on my TP there are links to the archives and I will archive my talk page every so often as many people on WP do. This part of WP is for discussion about the proposed deletion of this article, if you want to discuss something further with me please do so on my TP. Thanks, Josh1024 (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Parliament of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. Sources from the National Informatics Centre state that Shahabuddin was a member of the Rajya Sabha from 1979 to 1984 [9] (bottom of the 12th page) and the Lok Sabha from 1985 to 1996 [10]. Funny ^Pika! 22:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per FunnyPika. Passes WP:POLITICIAN as a former Member of Parliament. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polymodality

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years, no references, seems to be a definition. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not even an accurate definition. The term is usually used in relation to music, not anatomy. See Wiktionary and Google search. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICTIONARY. It's strange how rubbish like this surves for so long Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as author, make the page a redirect to Stimulus_modality#Polymodality (or disambiguation, if it's a music concept too). Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:32, 7 February 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 Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl The Movie

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor User:96.49.23.5, who offered no rationale. On the merits, I see an article started in 2010 that, at one point, read thus: "We are a group of artists, and voice actors, and animators that are creating a full color 2d animated movie, based on the book Artemis Fowl." The project is listed variously as a studio film, a fan film, and something in-between. The author also notes (correctly, I imagine) that the group does not even have the rights to the property. There are no sources available in any format that I can access, nor is there evidence of media coverage in print or elsewhere that might not be available online. In short, I do not see the case for notability here. Per WP:USUAL, if such a film came into being and was covered in reliable sources, and then was released in such a manner as to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFILM, you might have a case for an article. But, at present, there is nothing here to suggest that the project meets our guidelines for notability, either for films or in general. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator has made the case and I concur. Reading the article makes it clear that this topic isn't notable at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non existent unsourced unlicensed project. Information about bona fide professional efforts to develop the film rights for Artemis Fowl is already located at Artemis Fowl (series)#Film adaptation; Google and GNews show a few sources for those development activities (which have nothing to do with the ones described in the article we're discussing here) but not enough to support a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Artemis_Fowl_(series)#Film_adaptation. Fan movies are almost never notable. Rare exceptions do come about every now and then, but this is not one of those exceptions. What little I can find about a film adaptation tends to talk about the official versions. I've found nothing to suggest that this fan adaptation is or will be notable. If/when it actually gets made and gains coverage, I have no problem with it being recreated. I just recommend that when that point comes, the original creators seek assistance from someone in WP:FILM to show them what constitutes a reliable source. To be completely honest, I rather doubt that this will get made. There are a lot of red flags here, such as the team refusing to give their names, using the Wikipedia page at one point to beg for donations, and the team assuming that all they have to do for rights is to e-mail the author. Those don't automatically mean that the film can't become notable or get created, but as someone who has watched many such fan movies get proposed, then crash and burn, it's a pretty good sign that this will never get made. However since this is a rather generic title, we can use this as a redirect to the actual mainstream film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a redirect, as it is a reasonable search term for whatever official adaptation comes along. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources and so vague that is essentially not sourceable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Veres

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the article's only source is a link to his fight record. Lacks significant coverage and the only other claim to notability is coming in 6th in the state in high school wrestling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtemp (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hasn't won any major tournaments, and lacks coverage Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 07:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage, fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remains one fight shy needed to meet WP:NMMA. It also appears he has not fought since 2008 and is presumably retired making the likeliness of another top-tier fight almost none. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:05, 9 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Herlihy

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

Non-notable, self-published, writer, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. Can't find coverage of or citation to his works. That aside, there's not enough out there on this person in reliable sources to build an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 16:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-published writer who fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. US exile Non-notable, self-published writer, a Bostonian who received a degree from Columbia, a Catholic/Islam convert, has taught English as a second language in oil rich Arabian Gulf states along with thousands of equally qualified teachers--some of whom have self published books in their field and not used Wikipedia as a book wholesaler. Wikipedia which is not Amazon.com. I agree with (Qworty) on all accounts, especially that it seems to be pure WP:PROMO. 4 February 21:20 UTC —Preceding comment added 17:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, etc. Looks like pure WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the above posters on this. There's no there there. DreamGuy (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several searches in Google News and Books are not yielding coverage about this subject. Appears to fail WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR. Mkdw ^talk 07:54, 10 February 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) 06:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fire glass

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

Lacks notability (WP:GNG) and seems to be an advertisement (WP:NOTADVERTISING). Srsrox (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although notability is borderline, this is a product made by several companies, and the article seems neutral, so I don't consider it advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say it just about passes WP:GNG, search engine results return some secondary coverage and the topic is not particularly obscure or unknown. The article doesn't appear to resemble an advertisement in its current form. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 20:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added three references to the article and took out a non-neutral phrase. The resulting article has secondary, independent, and in-depth references from wisegeek (marginal in-depth), Glass on Web, and the Illinois State Journal Register newspaper. The reference from woodlanddirect is a primary reference from a retailer of of fire glass, but has some useful information. The eHow reference seems like a useful secondary reference, but eHow is blacklisted from Wikipedia, so is probably not considered reliable. From this, it looks like there are multiple secondary reliable sources and the topic modestly passes general notability guidelines WP:GNG. At this point the article doesn't look all that promotional to me and the woodlanddirect source could be dropped if that is a concern. Notability, along with no major advertising/promotional problems lead me to recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Mark viking's sourced improvements. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No real bearing on its noteworthiness, but I did just come to Wikipedia looking for information on this stuff, and it would have been a shame if it wasn't there. Sowelu (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark viking.--Staberinde (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've removed the eHow reference. That is not a reliable source. The other sources (aside from the vendor site) demonstrate notability, and searches with other terms turns up some more minor coverage like this. The substantial soruces int he article in conjunction with the more minor mentions is sufficient to clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 10 February 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 The Nostalgia Critic episodes . MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworks-uary

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

A promotional article for "That Guy With The Glasses" and his reviews -- and I don't see the encyclopedic value in a list of summaries of one person's movie reviews. ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unencyclopedic and promotional. Mangoe (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete No evidence (or likelihood) of outside coverage of this series. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous a speedy A7 after the article was submitted by User:Ashlark two days ago. Now it is back, equally unreferenced, equally non-notable. No reason to revise previous opinion that it fails WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the article creator's comments on Talk:Dreamworks-uary. These draw attention to another article as precedent: Disneycember. That is equally lacking in references to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's not good either. Shall we add that in to this AFD? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes It does contain things reviewed by Doug Walker of The Nostalgia Critic fame, and his other videos are lumped in with his.MadManAmeica (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Disney-cember: It's important to NC fans. Maybe rename the page to something along the lines of "NC Animated Reviews".- Just Phil 03:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE (or merge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacNighttt (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Madigan

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

Subject fails WP:NMMA, only one fight for the UFC. LlamaAl (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria at WP:NMMA and lacks any significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject remains two fights shy of the three required to meet WP:NMMA. His last being in 2009, making the likeliness of another two top-tier fights very low. No WP:SIGCOV other than WP:ROUTINE to warrant a standalone article outside WP:NMMA. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 9 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Chopra

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

Lots of breathless praise, but no sources. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Reliable sources and references have been added. Please review your opinionYUVRAJ CHOPRA (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but my opinion has not changed. Most of your "references" are just names of institutions. The others (to The Tribune, for example) are only in-passing mentions and don't add anything to notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I spot a COI violation as well. Delete. Osarius - Want a chat? 11:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find singificant coverage in reliable sources. A search for "Kapil Chopra" turns up many individuals. The most prominent appears to be a bunsinessman heading up the Oberoi group. There are results for somebody by that name involved in the arts (e.g. [11]), but the description of him does not match that of the subject of the Wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - US exile clearly a wiki promotional page, probably thrown up to bolster a CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.170.95.210 (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 10 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterfest

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

Non-notable festival sponsored by non-notable band. Bereft of sources. Notability questioned since March 2009.GrapedApe (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources appear to be scant, and the topic appears to fail WP:GNG. Sources found from this search appear to only provide passing mentions about the festival, upon review. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found mostly trivial mentions, plus a few local write-ups like this; not seeing enough significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Gong show 05:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only similar things to Gongshow. Fails WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am only finding WP:ROUTINE coverage for what you would expect for a local music festival. Nothing that brings it close to the reliable and independent coverage needed for a standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 07:56, 10 February 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 move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Malawi-related articles

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

This old list article seems to be trying to replicate the job of a Category. In addition there are literally hundreds of unverifiable redlinks. Simply inappropriate and of little use, as far as I can see. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Outline of Malawi and add whatever content is in the first one to the second one, minus the massive amount of redlinks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary article list, superseded by Category:Malawi. Don't see a point in redirecting because the title is not a phrase commonly used to search with. Funny ^Pika! 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it's probably not a lot of use in article space given that it is mostly redlinks and Outline of Malawi serves this purpose better. However can things like this be moved into project sub-pages as there seems to be a lot that might be of use to something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi? Keresaspa (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I noted on the talk page nearly five years ago, all the entries have articles in the Historical Dictionary of Malawi, so there's at least one usable source for every redlink. Looking at Lists of country-related topics, I can't really tell what the current fashion is for this kind of list. Deleting redlinks seems a little head-in-the-sand about how many articles are still missing... Stan (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Sionk (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've strike'd out my redirect !vote pending resolution on how to handle this given the comments above. I recognize that if those titles came from a reliable source there is value in keeping them around. The question would be how, exactly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikipeida namespace under an appropriate WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Development. KTC (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense to me. I didn't realise these 'non-article' lists existed. There is at least one editor who is slowly working through some of the Malawi redlinks and creating solid articles, so moving the list to Wikipedia namespace would be of benefit. As the nominator, I'll happily withdraw my AfD on this basis. Sionk (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've retracted my delete vote based on the above comments. I'll not stand in the way of someone who'll create articles from the list. Funny ^Pika! 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've boldly copied this to Wikipedia namespace, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles, per the rationale of User:KTC and others above. This would promote the creation of articles on Wikipedia. I have also placed a link and information on the project's main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi#Articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Malawi/Index of Malawi-related articles, per my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth would you copy and paste move the page instead of doing a proper move? KTC (talk) 12:29, 6 February 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 withdrawn by nom / WP:SNOW. The subject has verified writing credit for a notable song and thus passes WP:COMPOSER. (Non-admin close). Stalwart111 01:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catt Gravitt

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

Seemingly an WP:AUTOBIO created by an WP:SPA with the same name as the article. Only a couple of the sources actually mention the subject at all and most of the article consists of unverified claims the subject has writing credit for a whole bunch of songs. Those sources that do mention the subject are the subject's bio published by her record label and a bio from an artists' rights organisation of which the subject seems to be a member. Having searched, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Stalwart111 11:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following response to this AFD was posted to my TP rather than here, so I'm moving it here. Stalwart111 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - Hi....forgive me as I am new to the wikipedia community and learning as I go so I am trying to learn proper communication protocol etc.

I was HIRED by Catt Gravitt to make a personal wikipedia page for her to aid her in her career.

I was advised to take out phrases that sounded too personal or persuasive and have done this to the best of my ability.

ALL of my information has been APPROVED by Mrs. Gravitt as correct, and the sources and references to legitimate companies and websites are cited as I believe they should be.

I will review the page again, but every detail of her career, recognitions and awards, and songwriting information is factual and listing all of her credentials is important and necessary in developing new working relationships in the business as you can imagine.

If this page is deleted, my payment is in jeopardy because I was hired to do a job, and whoever nominated my page is causing my payment to be pending.

Please help me understand why you think my article doesn't meet wikipedia standards because it has ALREADY been approved.

It looks very unprofessional for Mrs. Gravitt to have a songwriter page with a note saying the information may not be valid or legitimate, and I need to get this fixed asap.

Thanks for your help, and for understanding my frustrations with the deletion nomination.

Catt Gravitt (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded here. Stalwart111 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who cares if Catt Gravitt herself wrote the article? A quick google search clearly vouches for her notability and the article adds value to the Wikipedia project. If there's anything biased or not written from a neutral point of view in the article...then correct those specific deficiencies. Throwing the baby out with the bath water shows complete disregard for other people's time and effort. --Xerographica (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effort is almost certainly assured when a conflict is involved but it is not, unfortunately, an inclusion justification. But as always, if you have any reliable sources that confer notability, feel free to post them here for consideration. Stalwart111 00:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here she is in a Country Music Television article...1. That alone sufficiently establishes her notability within her field. --Xerographica (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we ordinarily require multiple reliable sources and one paragraph wouldn't normally be considered "significant coverage", but it's certainly a very good start. A couple more like that and we'd be there, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 00:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Billboard.com...she has a number one single. Being covered by CMT...and having a number one hit song...is way more than she truly needs to warrant having her own Wikipedia entry. --Xerographica (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where it says she had... "one title on Billboard's Hot Country Songs every week during the eligibility period..." but that's not the same as a "number one single", unless I'm missing a line in there somewhere. Stalwart111 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article does have proper supporting WP:RS. WP:PAY does not mandate article deletion. "[T]ransparency and neutrality are key." It looks like contributor is working to properly declare COI and willingness/eagerness to comply with WP:FIVE. And it looks like Gravitt meets notability standards. (X – if it's not already there, you otta add the CMT article to her article.) – S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Contributor has posted a COI declaration on her talk page and the Gravitt talk page has a {{Connected contributor}} banner. – S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 5 February 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 Ithaka (musician). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 06:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers And The Color Of Paint

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

As written in the article itself:

The original pressing of Flowers And The Color Of Paint was only 1500 copies and although a song, Escape from The City Of Angels made it into a Hollywood movie, there was never an official soundtrack.

While the musician that wrote the music might possibly be notable, the album itself appears to fail any number of notability criteria. (My internet access is misbehaving: might have to edit this for specificity and clarifications) Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Ithaka (musician) as a plausible search term. Unless I'm missing something, this does not even begin to meet WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The size of the initial pressing is irrelevant; the lack of reviews or other significant coverage indicates it's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:24, 30 January 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) 10:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems sensible if people think its a plausible search term. Not seeing enough for a standalone article, though. Stalwart111 11:49, 4 February 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 Ghost-riding. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Ride It

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

Has received nowhere near enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article (just one source), and did not appear on any major music chart - surely fails WP:NSONGS and WP:N. The album that it was released as a single from is up for deletion as well, so I suggest a delete instead of a redirect. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Ghost-riding or Mistah F.A.B.. The article may only have a single cite, but there are plenty more out there. Google News archive finds 80 hits. Granted, the news stories are primarily in the context of the ghost-riding fad. It's place on official charts was stunted through its being withdrawn in the wake of outcry over the dangerous ghost-riding association and objections from the Ghostbusters copyright/trademark owners; however, it surely had a large popular appeal--there are millions of Youtube hits across multiple video versions, and last.fm records 600,000+ listens. Multiple reliable sources have noted its musical/popular success--"his breakout single" (Allmusic), "F.A.B.'s stupidly great single" (Pitchfork), "a modern masterpiece" (Harvard Crimson), "irresistibly catchy" (sportsillustrated.cnn.com). There is not really that much material here, though, so I think that it could be comfortably accommodated in either target article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 21 January 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 05:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hobbes This phenomenon was very much like a meme, or an Internet fad like planking or tebowing, and this song was central to the phenomenon's wider popularity. I don't think it has independent notability, but I think it would best be merged with the Ghostriding article. Cdtew (talk) 02:12, 2 February 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) 10:11, 4 February 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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Moyer

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

Not notable but assertion is there. Ariconte (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage rises to the level of interesting but ultimately not notable. There is the local coverage and some appearances on TV. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 25 January 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 05:56, 28 January 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) 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Five minutes of fame for some juggling stunts is not notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 4 February 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_My-HiME_anime_characters. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Greer

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

I don't see why this character is of encyclopedic importance. It's completely in-universe, has only primary sources, and seem entirely non-notable. We are not an anime fansite, at least we're not supposed to be. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters. I don't see where this character is independently notable of the series itself. A redirect is appropriate in this instance.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Redirect to List of My-HiME anime characters, ~~the info on the character page just has a brief mention of the character, more detailed info without going too far would be helpful~~ - Edit: I have gone ahead and made the merge. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A character that has not received enough real world coverage. Also has no independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:12, 31 January 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) 10:06, 4 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Chaos (webzine)

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

Non-notable web zine, can find no coverage to establish notability in independent sources. This issue has been raised as far back as 2007 on the talk page and there are still no reference to establish notability of the publication. Ridernyc (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition every single edit of substance to this article has been performed by a SPA whose sole purpose is to add spam for this webzine. Only about 50 edits since article was created in 2005 and every single non cleanup or maintenance edit performed by an SPA spam account. Not sure how this is still here. Ridernyc (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – As it stands, the article is overly reliant on sourcing to its own website (which is a reliable source for itself, but does not help with WP:N notability). I was able to add a few more sources however. The 'zine is somewhat notable as one of the first webzines dedicated to extreme metal music, which I've sourced to Billboard. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage of the topic that is the subject of the article about the periodical being discussed. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 23 January 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 00:19, 28 January 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) 10:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul Erik & Cirt. Argolin (talk) 03:58, 8 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DataStax

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

Non-notable software firm. Of sources listed, only two are reliable, the rest are either self-published or wikis/open-editing sites. Extensive editing by COI editor (employee). The two sources are not sufficient to satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Google pulled up a lot of press releases, but not much press that I could find. GregJackP Boomer! 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The bylined article from InformationWeek plus the two bylined articles from The Register are decent discussions of the company. On the face of it, enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH: my only reservation is whether they are discussing the transient context of the firm as a start-up. AllyD (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DataStax has been the subject of articles in computer periodicals (e.g. http://www.eweek.com/database/apache-cassandra-based-datastax-community-edition-1.2-launches/), (e.g. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/datastax_enterprise_cassandra_2_0/). DataStax is considered to be one of four significant independent commercial players in the NoSQL market (see http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/01/15/4545144/research-and-markets-global-nosql.html) (or see 451group.com/information_management/2012/05/30/a-different-perspective-on-nosql-vendor-traction/), and the others -- Basho (company) and 10gen and Couchbase -- are in Wikipedia. The venture-capital funding ($38.7 million) is confirmed by Crunchbase www.crunchbase.com/company/datastax. The customer list can be at least partly confirmed by the customers themselves (e.g. for Netflix see http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/nosql-at-netflix.html). The COI issue, if it exists, could be solved by removing a particular editor's contributions rather than deleting the article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Crunchbase link cited is open to editing by anyone, and is not reliable (in the same manner as IMDb is not reliable). I don't have a problem withdrawing the nom if sufficient reliable sources are found, I didn't find them when I looked (or I missed them in all the fluff). GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any or all of the 182,000 hits that I find by googling for DataStax Venture Capital could be for false fronts, copiers of press releases, or user-editable places. Perhaps one alternative is to look up the venture-capital companies' web sites and see whether they mention DataStax, e.g. http://lsvp.com/company/datastax/ or http://www.meritechcapital.com/investments. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article today to (I hope) take care of the worst issues.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:28, 21 January 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 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Good source coverage of DataStax as subject of articles, periodicals and news coverage (forbes, wsj, reuters and zdnet). Tendency for strong keep, even.Editor400 (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:26, 1 February 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) 10:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A rewrite by Peter Gulutzan has significantly improved the article. Of the sources quoted in the article, including those added since nomination, the Dr. Dobbs article, Network World article, ZDnet article, and Eweek article are secondary sources, in depth about the topic, and are from reliable sources. The Jaxenter article and Forbes article might be RS, but I cannot tell if they are news stories or blog entries; both are reliable publishers. Given the multiple reliable sources in the article, it looks like this topic passes general notability guidelines. There are a few remaining peacock words in the article, but I don't find it strongly promotional; this is a minor, surmountable problem. Given the notability and the now minor problems, this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 17:30, 4 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organ Club

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

Fails WP:CLUB -- no verifiable coverage. Also, notability isn't derived from notable members per WP:NOTINHERITED. —Waldhorn (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In an effort to generate interest in this discussion, I have lightly canvassed recent contributors to Organ Club and Pipe Organ who are both active editors and appear to have an interest in the topic. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A society claiming to be worldwide and having operated for over 85 years may well be notable, but I would want to see some content in the article indicating its significance, in the field of organ music before deciding. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsure; I need to do more research before deciding. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree per User:Peterkingiron --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a brief look at sources online finds lots of information at Google Books and Google Scholar. Il also found a good source on The Organ Club Jubilee Fund. They are also listed on the definitive list of such groups. So I think it's at least marginally notable, but may need more editing. FWIW, a former boyfriend of mine was a member of the American Guild of Organists. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost certain to meet WP:GNG; just needs more work finding references. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 26 January 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 00:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is basically a single line about the club (sourced from their material), a long list of non-notable members and a large section advertising for membership. So it fails on several counts. I can't see any evidence of significant indpendent sources about the Club. If any come to light the article can easily be recreated with content appropriate for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 23:50, 28 January 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) 10:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The various listings mention above do no more than prove that the group exists, which we can tell from its website anyway. Secondary references beyond directories are conspicuously lacking and are heavily masked, if they exist, by all the other Organ Clubs out there. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 4 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Yongliang

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

Contested PROD (PROD was not by me). Huge mess. May be notable, but as it stands article is not salvageable, in my opinion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if those dot points are all legit it suggests a widely shown artist who may very well be notable given the galleries listed, per WP:ARTIST. But nom is dead right - article is a horrible mess. WP:TNT? Stalwart111 11:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've started trying to (a) tidy the article (though it remains far from well-formatted) and (b) add references to reliable press and museum coverage. The latter is the matter at issue here: the subject is plainly exhibiting widely and I think the level of international coverage is just about enough to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep At least this work of is in the permanent collection of the British Museum, and there is descriptive information at that RS link sufficient for an article. Rewriting will of course be needed, as for most articles submitted here about contemporary artists. (this is especially true since much of the page may be a loose paraphrase from outside sources.) DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I "fixed" it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and per the notability that Sven's improvements have made obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It feels weird to see an edit marked (-8,931)‎ described as an improvement... Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:CREATIVE following the clean up. Mkdw ^talk 07:58, 10 February 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 incubate. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leela (2013 film)

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

per WP:NOTFILM Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many bluenames, but "shooting of the film is planned to start in the mid of 2013" which goes against WP:NFF. I'm not a huge fan of WP:NFF, but articles like this are usually deleted. jonkerz ♠talk 12:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy. I did find sources and edited the article a little, but ultimately all I was able to find was some talk about casting issues and that although filming is set to begin this month, the final script hasn't been completed and that much of the film's progress depends on that. It's a shame that we don't have an article for the short story, as I found some talk to suggest that it is considered to be quite notable in India. But until that article gets created and until principal photography begins, this should be incubated. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or Userfy. Has coverage, but not enough to be an exception to WP:NFF. Until its time comes, it can be written of in the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. It's simply too soon. The script hasn't even been written... BOVINEBOY2008 15:04, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie O'Yang

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

Is this writer sufficiently notable? It looks like she has published only two novels, neither of which seemed to draw much response. I don't think this is quite enough for notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 09:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both books are self-published. I can't find the origin of her other identifiable work "Secret of Silk", which seems to have sunk with little trace, or to be only available under a non-English version of the title. The only references I can see in a quick sweep of the article's history are to literary agencies, at neither of which I can find her name. Not unless Pontas have an indexing system that classes her under something other than J, O or Y. I'm open to revision if better evidence of notability can be found. Peridon (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, 'Butterfly' is the book currently being publicised, there's another one also at Amazon, and 'Secret of Life' is the currently disappeared and presumably earliest one. Peridon (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to see where she or her books are notable enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There were some false hits for an anthropologist by the same name, but nothing specifically for this Julie O'Yang that would show she's notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VeryFirstTo

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

fails WP:CORP. sources provided merely confirm existence. nothing in gnews [12]. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search turns up: Their own website; their Twitter account info; their very own pinterest.com info; them on YouTube; and their Facebook info. And they have created their own "VeryFirst To" award(s) - there seems to have been a bit of coverage online from the likes of: Frost Magazine and The Citizens of Fashion - but the first is an online snipet of their "award" show with links to Facebook/etc, and the second is their own .com site it seems. I also found ibtimes, but can't verify it's reliability - maybe someone from the UK can attest to it if possible. There was this quote; "is an online business, which enables individuals to be the first to know about, and have, newly launching luxury products and experiences." making me wonder over speculation. And also this quote; "The site is aimed at ûber consumers' who are distinguished by their desire to be the first to have the latest products and experiences, and their willingness to pay many times over the normal price." that seems an even more speculative and impractical business ideal. And then this; "Access to the site is through free or paid-for membership, the latter of which provides access to exclusive privileges." that sounds of pricing/promotion. I see a couple more reasons than that above...but we have some WP:SELFPUB (toss in all Twitter, YouTube, pinterest.com & "VeryFirstTo" awards, etc) & WP:SELFPROMOTE too. Big issues with sourcing...runs afoul of WP:SOURCES...seems like they created all the "buzz" themselves. Ren99 ^wha? 10:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 February 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 Ray J. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raydiation 2

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

Raydiation is an album that is coming out in the future with no indication of when. I propose deletion of the page and then redirection into Ray J per the normal consensus for these types of albums. Thebirdlover (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray J, if there are enough content to start an article about its production, composition and background, but there ain't enough material for such. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I was reading over this and was curious to notice; "is the upcoming fifth studio album by American R&B recording artist Ray J. It is the fourth album by Ray J to feature production from Darkchild....The first single, "One Thing Leads to Another", which features Pitbull, was released on October 12, 2010. A video for the single hasn't been released as of yet. The second single, "Last Wish", was released on October 19, 2010. A video for the single was released on December 1, 2010. Couple years slow in the coming I guess, so may as well send it to Ray J's place... Ren99 ^wha? 08:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 February 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 as SEO spam. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way to earn driving license

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

Article was proposed for deletion per PROD but contested by the article's creator. WP:NOTHOWTO. ~satellizer~~talk~ 05:09, 4 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of Ohio University

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

This topic isn't suitable for an encyclopedia article as it's just a (largely unsourced) list of plants and animals in a tiny geographic location ElKevbo (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be original research by an editor whose work here thusfar is devoted to Ohio University. This does not seem to be a notable topic separate from the ecology of that region of Ohio. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH, unless soembody can find a good source that states firmly that the main campus is a microclimate. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' if there are sources and any form of protection then I'd say keep - a number of habitats over a fairly small area (although I imagine it's much larger than some protected areas) with protection of any kind would make an excellent topic for an article. You might want to talk to some of the folks at WP:Protected areas perhaps? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:30, 10 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Drift Trike

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

Prod removed without explanation by article author. Seems to have been written by an author with a serious conflict of interest in an effort to promote a particular product. Could not find a single reliable source to suggest that the product or company or activity is notable. Stalwart111 04:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: reference 1 is the company's own website, reference 2 is an association page that doesn't mention the subject at all and reference 3 is an advertisement/vlog that includes some people using the subject product but doesn't explain what they are, the history, etc - certainly not "significant coverage" as would ordinarily be required. Stalwart111 05:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article seems spamish, and flooded with self published content, wikipedia is not a blog or an adsense site, also the neutrality of the article is already compromised. The notability is the most intriguing factor, even though it is my preliminary opinion, even though a quick search brings no reliable sources which would sustain its maintenance (and prove that the subject is in fact notable) on WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Hi

What kind of information do you need for this article to be deemed as fit for Wiki?

This is a product that we created and such all images bare our Logo's (which i have now taken down). The main information for electric trikes are on Blogs, Forums and our website. A well known company (Audi) has used an Electric Trike in its video, we have images of an electric trike on a Track, being built from the ground up and given a detailed description on how they are used and built.

I spent a good amount of time making it as detailed as possible and in comparison to Drift Trikes Wiki Page it seems much more informative.

If you could take the time to inform me of what information you need to see to believe an Electric Drift Trike is a real thing and how i explained the functionality is true, i would greatly appreciate it.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrikeDrifters (talk • contribs) 07:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a couple of messages at your talk page with some of the policies and guidelines you should have a read of. But basically, the stuff at WP:N is a good place to start. Then WP:RS with regard to blogs and forums as sources. It being a real thing is not automatic justification for an article here, as existence does not equal notability. Stalwart111 07:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 February 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 already deleted. Eye snore 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocaeruleus cavugnathidae

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

Eye snore 01:30, 4 February 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 February 4. Snotbot t • c » 01:42, 4 February 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Middle Eastern descent

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

Uncited for four years. Same problem as other ethnic ice hockey players. Overly broad category (which should really go with the Asian list). Only three are of actual Middle Eastern descent only, and none are citizens of those countries. Therefore, this is a spurious intersection of data. MSJapan (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no intrinsic notability to being a hockey player with random ancestry. Especially in a North American (especially Canadian) dominated sport where our very culture is built on immigration. The simple truth is most of these players are viewed as being "Canadian" or "American", not "Lebanese-Canadian". Reso lute 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Ice Hockey is a White-dominated sport and it is very rare to see any NHL players of Middle Eastern descent. Marc87 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, then? (Also a smidge of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS perhaps.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 3 February 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 01:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because a perceived group of "White" players exists, doesn't mean a list of "Middle Eastern" players needs to exist to augment it...per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Segragating by ethnicity shouldn't be the prerogative, we are all of the "human" race :) Ren99 ^wha? 05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the connection between Persian and Arab players? Why do we lump the middle east together and exclude Jewish players? It just seems all arbitrary to me and the scope is all out of wack. If the scope was defined to just Lebanese, for example, then I'd be okay with it.--Львівське (говорити) 20:28, 4 February 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 deleted by User:Malik Shabazz, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Terzian

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

The sources in the article either don't pass Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or don't provide significant coverage of the subject, and I couldn't find anything online, so I don't think the subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, I don't think that the competition win and the TV appearances are enough to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with Mr.Stradivarius's conclusion.
The article is being continuously updated/corrected/edited and more external references are being added which also refer to the TV music competition "Pêle Mêle" which served to discover lebanese talents, that's where Gary Terzian won the first prize in 1968. Indirectly answering Mr.Stradivarius's concerns, the competition was not just a TV appearance. It was a national competition equivalent to the American Idol at that time. This and other information along with the references that have been added in the article, satisfy the requirements of articles 8, 9 and 12 of the Criteria for musicians and ensembles, articles 2 and 6 of the Criteria for composers and lyricists and articles 1 and 4 for composers and performers outside mass media traditions.
It should be taken into consideration that the article refers to history from the sixties and seventies where there was no internet and global communication networks. The geographical context of the events has also it's particularities. It is normal that the references or sources cannot be as exhaustive and precise as for recent musical events.
I strongly suggest to keep the article on Gary Terzian and remove it from from the list of articles being considered for deletion.Silk road star (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silk road star: As you are even a more newcomer here than myself I feel I can tell you this: If you created an article which looks like not so necessary to others maybe you should just stay away and see what other people think. I am not saying that you don't have a right to defend your work; without doubt you do. Perhaps because I am an old-fashioned guy I believe one should try to listen to others' opinions first to be able to make a sound decision and have a more complete idea, especially on his/her own deeds. This comment does not include any POV for or against the article. Best. --E4024 (talk) 21:49, 26 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief search for proper sources came out blank, apart from self-published stuff. The article is way too self-promotional. If the author likes, maybe an admin would be kind enough to move it back into his userspace for him/her to fix up. ~dee^(talk?) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify which source came out blank so that it can be corrected. I checked the sources. They don't come out blank. Silk road star (talk) 21:37, 2 February 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 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed a search and ultimately I was unable to show where Terzian passes WP:MUSBIO. I couldn't find any news reports, book mentions, or the like that would show that he is ultimately notable. Of the sources on the article, none are usable to show notability. He seems to somewhat prolific while alive, but being busy isn't notability in and of itself. There is mention of him winning an award on a TV show, but not every award is so overwhelmingly notable that it'd give notability in and of itself. There is mention of one of his songs getting played once on New Year's Day, but that's not national rotation. It was played once. To qualify for this level of notability for musicians, it'd have to be in rotation along the lines of "Call Me Maybe" or similar. Since Silk road star is new, I'm giving a rundown of the sources:

The first three sources are for a book that doesn't appear to be of the type of source that Wikipedia would consider usable in showing notability. Not every book published is usable as a reliable source.
Links 4 and 5 go to SoundCloud. Anyone can upload things to SoundCloud, so this wouldn't show notability. Even if the clips were uploaded by the people who owned the rights to the performances, helping to coordinate performances or recordings does not guarantee notability. Coverage of Terzian performing in these roles would show notability, but this coverage doesn't exist.
This link, like many of the other links on the article, goes to YouTube. It looks like a random posting of one of his recordings on YT. That's not usable as a reliable source or even as a link in general because of how dubious the copyright is in this circumstance. FYI, never link to anything that isn't posted by the person who owns the rights to it.
[13] This doesn't even mention Terzian. Even if it did, this wouldn't show notability.
There are links to merchant sites such as Amazon for albums that Terzian put out or otherwise contributed to. Making albums does not guarantee notability. Merchant sites are unusable as reliable sources in any context. The albums exist, but existing is not notability.

There are multiple links to pages that do not mention Terzian at all and are about people or things he worked with. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by him working with, around, or being otherwise associated with notable people, places, or things.

One of the links is to a blog. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source unless the blog was written by someone who is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject. Less than 1% of bloggers have this level of reliability.

This is pretty much the summary of the sources in a nutshell. None of them are usable and to be honest, it doesn't help that the entire article is written in a very promotional and non-neutral tone. The guy just isn't notable. Most musicians fall under the radar when it comes to mainstream attention. I have no problem with this getting userfied, but I would encourage the editor to solicit help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking back at this after original discussions on the article talk page, it does now have page references to the Shamelikian Boghos book which is likely to be closest to something that may be a reliable source. But overall, all I am seeing is a memorial biography of someone who was clearly a working musician, in hotels, as a sideman, in a couple of bands with other people who went on to prominent careers. It is well short on the convincing sources which are really needed, not least for the credibility of Wikipedia if it is to carry articles describing someone as a genius in the very first line. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw The biography is yet incomplete but correct for what is already in the article, as I spent a lot of time and energy interviewing people, contacting people overseas who new the subject who is a worthy composer and musician, in order to gather information about him. In view of his historical and geographical circumstances, as I am actually realizing, the subject does not have his due coverage on the internet and it is impossible for me to find enough verifiable sources for the time being on the internet for each statement, as required by wikipedia, although this can change in the future as is the case for example with the recently published book by Boghos Shahmelikian.

Some of the criticism written above by several members can be technically contested but still it will not make it a full-proof article. I will not go through it. So, I am asking for a speedy deletion, a withdrawal of the article because it cannot be further developed for the time being. If there is a possibility of keeping the article I will continue working on it. I am the main contributor of the article. Thanks Silk road star (talk) 02:21, 5 February 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 Leon County Schools#Middle schools. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:NOTBURO The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swift Creek Middle School

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

Middle schools are usually not notable, no indication that this is an exception. If the promotional content is removed, the article would be only one sentence and an infobox. The article has a history of promotional edits (some of them probably copied from somewhere) and vandalism. Peter James (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County Schools. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cullen328. --Man way 02:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leon County Schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prabalsagar incident

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

The article is a person who is not notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) scope and all the mention of him are related to one event of stabbing which made news and hence fall within scope of WP:1E and therefore should be speedily deleted. Half of the article is on news of his stabbing and reactions over the country. one section mentions about a monk who initiated him, etc. There is no mention of the person (Prabalsagar)'s personal contributions to Jainism or society as a whole or any other achievements that may suffice him to have an article on Wikipedia. However, after speedy deletion was declined, the creator has changed the article name to Prabalsagar incident from Prabalsagar, even then I am not satisfied and nominate this article for AfD debate. Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There has been a lot of related newspaper reports. I have seen them in English, Hindi and Gujarati language newspapers.Malaiya (talk)
Keep. This article is about an incident involving a particular individual, there is no original research in this article, there are no dubious/contentious claims, the article is well referenced and there are plenty of sources. Also, as per WP:1E, since the individual is notable for a particular incident and is only associated with that incident in the source coverage, this article was adequately renamed Prabalsagar incident.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Even after 48 hours of renaming the article from Prbalsagar to Prabalsagar incident, the article remains in form of Biography only. Also incident of any attack, especially on a leader of any religious sect are always condemnable and as such the press coverage. But it is for Wikipaedia community to decide that did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example the Steve Bartman incident caused one club to lose a major baseball championship. Please see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT for what I want to emphasis. The keep votes of article creator and a major contributor have not understood the wiki guidelines of creating an article that is what I feel. - Jethwarp (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the initial concern was that the article looked as if it was not about the person, but about the incident, that's why I changed the name. Now it looks like a biography? I've made further changes, let me know what you think. Isn't this the kind of stuff you discuss on talk pages. I'm not sure what's your idea of noteworthy change, half the article is about stuff that happened after the incident.

The Keep vote, besides the one from me, is from an editor who has not touched the concerned article, I'm not sure how you concluded that the voter is a major contributor. I thought we assumed good faith around here, the Keep vote is from editors who haven't understood guidelines? Not cool.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither the individual or the "incident" is notable. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS. this is just a standard tragic violent event that happens all the time. no indication of wide spread impact that would lift it beyond local bloody headline of the day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 21 January 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, 27 January 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 January 27. Snotbot t • c » 05:48, 27 January 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 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think as has been commented above this particular incident is the subject of news coverage only and as such is not suitable for an article on its own within the terms of the notability guidelines (WP:NOTNEWS) - there are some comments that the incident has arisen as the result of a long-term dispute or conflict, in which case it may be there could or should be an article to which this could be merged - the notability of that article would of course need to be established. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) - ammended as i forgot to vote ---- _nonsense ferret 02:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (WP:NOTNEWS) is not applicable here. Try and understand why this policy exists. This policy exists to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a first hand news haven or from becoming a blog about the happenings in the life of a celebrity. And this article is not the primary source of information for the said events and is definitely not a celebrity blog. Check out my earlier comments above for WP:1E and the subsequent changes and how that policy is more applicable here.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - this is highly applicable here. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" - and this enduring notability cannot readily be established from contemporaneous news coverage - encyclopedias take the long view, and we have to establish whether this single event really carried with it the level of significance to be notable in itself. I find that it does not and this event was not notable in of itself, its significance is only that it was a small part of a wider conflict/tension. There are a great many events that happen, many of them are newsworthy and are written about endlessly in the newspapers whom have a unquenchable appetite for things to write about. Few newsworthy events turn out to have a level of significance that renders them encyclopedic on their own merits. ---- _nonsense ferret 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the person nor the event is notable enough to be covered/mentioned in any encyclopedia.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is very subjective. Wikipedia strives to be less focussed on the majority/American happenings and tries to be inclusive. For example, most of Wikipedia's featured articles are of absolutely no interest to a lot of people. Had there been no sources, it would've been a different story. But there are sources.--Aayush18 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 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. Official reason is copyvio but I would also throw in blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Guarini

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

Despite what appears to be an impressive article t seems to me that most of it is puffery and that the gentleman is not as notable as he believes he is - always a drawback to creating articles on one's self, discovering that one may well not be notable after all. The references do not seem to me to pass WP:RS and I do not believe that this is a truly notable musician. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

week keep - Guarini is notable musician in Italy (I'm Italian), but I can see the puffery too. The proposed bio is just a cut&paste from Guarini's personal web-site and the proposed article is rising even more confusion because is pointing to the wrong Goblin page; actually, Goblin rock band is pretty much famous in Europe and Guarini is a former member of the present line-up. I think that the page is worth keeping, but only if it undergoes a deep editing from a NPOV. Toffanin (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the copyright violation. I have now fagged the article for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright violation. There shoudl be no obstacle to re-creation assuming notability can be established and verified. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:25, 4 February 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. Consensus to keep, been 15 days since nomination. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Kiran Adivi

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

Article has been listed as failing notability guidelines for over three years. Cannot locate any reliable sources.Retrolord (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: a director, who has made two movies and both of them are covered in Wikipedia, is surely notable. No need of further proof.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "both of them are covered in Wikipedia", you're implying that because the films each have an article, he would be notable then this isn't always the case. There are filmmakers who only made a few films and never achieved notability for themselves. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "both of them are covered in Wikipedia" I meant that WP has a page on both: Villagelo Vinayakudu and Vinayakudu (film). Next time you file an Afd, please check "what links here" for the page. You can make it for yourself in cases such as this one, whether notability can be challenged or not.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for now - I'll refrain from actually voting until I hear from other users but it seems he won a Nandi Award for the debut film which may suggest notability, with Google News providing some links here (I know galatta.com is blacklisted but I don't know if Super Good Movies is reliable, probably not). However, I found an interview here and a brief mention here. Although there doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage about the award that I can find, it seems it did happen. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SwisterTwister's comment. These links are good enough in my opinion to prove some notability. Lyk4 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ST. —Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 10 February 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Music Lesson Center

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

Non-notable music school (although the term "school" is stretching it). This was PRODed in 2008, but the PROD was removed by the article's creator. This organization/business is basically a center giving private music lessons. It is not a music conservatory with full time students or a full time faculty. It has no powers to award degrees or even diplomas. Despite extensive searching, I can find no coverage at all about the school apart from directory listings and the school's own pages. Nothing in Highbeam Research to which I have a subscription. Nothing in Google News (apart from a very brief announcement of a local artist who was exhibiting her paintings there). Nothing in Google Books. The founder (Elliot Page) is not notable either. All I could find were brief mentions in local press reviews of a band he was in before he founded the center. The only two "faculty" members listed in the article who are remotely notable (Daniel Bennett and Elena Zoubareva) apparently no longer teach there [14], and the fact that they did is not mentioned in their WP articles nor is it supported by any other sources. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond the nom's extensive comments, heck ... I'm a musician who was associated on and off with one of the music schools in the area for over thirty years, and I've never heard of this outfit. I also note the sheer dishonest puffery involved -- the school's website claims "We're happy to be featured as Boston's top music school on CBS," but the link goes to a blogger on the Channel 5 (the local CBS affiliate)'s website, which reports a list of seven schools and teachers recommended to her by the fans on her Facebook page. Ravenswing 23:07, 30 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school doesn't inherit any notoriety for having previously had instructors of "remote" notability, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED once they had moved on, and the school has not accomplished anything notable in it's own right outside of any consideration to those absent persons. Taking that the local musician posting above has never heard of them, and the primary reference source is Facebook (non-notable, non-reliable), and a blog (non-reliable), there is basically nothing here to evaluate, reference, or retain. Яεñ99 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very good analysis above, I've also had a look for any coverage and can find not a sausage ---- _nonsense ferret 00:59, 4 February 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound International

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 13 January 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 January 13. Snotbot t • c » 12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The magazine existed, as this Billboard article confirms, but I could find no other coverage and no indication that an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ IncubateSources are our lifeblood, and our ability to judge them is aided by reading our own articles. The magazine is recognized by the world library system at Worldcat. If notability were really a problem, which doesn't appear to be the case, then the material could be merged. ~~Nominator is on~~ Nomination is part of a deletion spree, and did not report here the "What Links Here", and also might have considered the times that "Link House Publications" appears in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess to being quite confused by your argument - you are saying because there may be articles which rely on this journal that it should have its own article? As far as I can see from your link, there is only one article which cites this and I should probably be thinking about nominating that article for deletion after a bit more research. ---- _nonsense ferret 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see two articles and several Wikiprojects linking to this magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In order to prepare the community for a proposal to remove material from the encyclopedia, nominations are requested at WP:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE) to follow a number of steps which provide information to AfD participants. One of these steps is to check the "What Links Here". No one has reported here on why these links exist. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a magazine is not coupled to topics that use the magazine as a reliable source, so if an article that uses Sound International as a reliable source is deleted, this in no way is a reason to remove material about the magazine. Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 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 01:42, 20 January 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 01:50, 27 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any evidence of notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a merge or redirect target? Unscintillating (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that a merge/redirect would be preferable to outright deletion, but I couldn't find anything that looked like a suitable target. Link House Publications would be a good choice but it doesn't exist. Do you have any other suggestions? --Cerebellum (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that there is a Wikiproject attempting to get articles on publishers, but I don't recall where that is. What about incubation, until the right people can get involved? I've changed my !vote to incubate. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The major contributor to this article, Relen, has not been contacted. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 11 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soundz

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ ~~deletion spree~~ unquestionable disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 18 January 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 01:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One_Woman_Army#Recording for now as it seems he has received the most attention for this. I didn't find anything reliable for working with Pitbull but I did find this which mentions working with Ciara. At this time, it seems he is best known for working with Ciara's 2013 album. After multiple detailed searches, I found this interview from 2010 and Justin Bieber mentions here, here and here. I attempted to search for reliable sources on Kelly Rowland but only found that interview I mentioned earlier which repeatedly mentions her and I found this and this for Gail Scott. I also found this to confirm his work with Chantel. It seems he only worked with Usher for one album in 2008 but there isn't much in-depth coverage about this aside from brief mentions ("he has worked with stars such as Usher..."). I searched with some of the artists he worked with in the beginning but found nothing substantial. In addition to the thatgrapejuice.net interview, I found other entries from that website that briefly mention him here, here, here and here (all for Ciara). He is starting to receive more attention but I think he isn't notable yet and, as mentioned, he is really best known for Ciara at this time despite briefly working with Justin Bieber (which he did not receive in-depth coverage from). SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 21 January 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 01:47, 27 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Even though notability is not inherit, Soundz has a comprehensive work with several major and minor musical artists, the article is unsourced, but if you search for example, there are not only mentions ^{1 23}, but his collaboration with a multitude of artists is which makes him notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Soundz also was involved into a controversy in which he claimed singer Beyonce pays for musical credits. ^(a)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Patel School of Technology Management and Engineering

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

The page to be deleted because it now does not contain authenticate resources and I cannot undo the edit. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Greencottonmouth123 (talk) 04:51, 20 January 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 January 20. Snotbot t • c » 05:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should already be well covered by Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies. Most of this article is copyvio. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies what can be reliably sourced. No justification for outright deletion. Also see WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 26 January 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 01:33, 27 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:12, 4 February 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. Sources found ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denver and the Mile High Orchestra

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I can't find any WP:RSs to support notability Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found coverage in reliable sources very easy to find, e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], plus a review in Jazz Times. --Michig (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 30 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Gene93ks~~ Michig's sources seem to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided; Cerebellum, are you sure you didn't mean User:Michig? ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so; sorry about that :) --Cerebellum (talk) 15:48, 10 February 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

System76

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

Fails WP:ORG. The only reliable coverage that is not from the company itself appears to be lists that merely include System76 among other Linux OEMs or otherwise trivial coverage (see for example [26], [27], and [28]). This is not sufficient for notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-known Linux PC OEM with plenty of coverage available. You might describe any of the sources as "trivial". What is your criteria for dismissing references? --JBrown23 (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two links are cited to omgubuntu.co.uk, which does not appear to be a reliable source (although, to be fair, I couldn't find any WP:RSN discussion on this site). The second link is borderline trivial coverage as well (a brief description of a System76 computer in a list of Linux computers). The third source (which I pulled up from a Google news search) is unquestionably reliable, but the coverage of System76 is clearly trivial ("Over the course of 2012, in fact, we saw machines from not just specialty makers ZaReason, System76, and ThinkPenguin offer this option, but also Asus, Dell, and more."). I couldn't find any reliable sources with nontrivial coverage of the company in my research, but I would certainly appreciate being pointed to any that do exist. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added what seems to be non-trivial coverage from some well known publishers, including Engadget, PCWorld, and ZDNet. I hope this helps with this effort. Benjaminoakes (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:50, 15 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:51, 20 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:57, 27 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 February 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collage (singer)

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

Unreferenced blp. Tagged for notability for 5 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, had some chart action. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The chart listings seem to be multiple artists conflated, but the #56 Hot 100 peak is this Collage according to one of the Whitburn books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:53, 15 January 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:48, 20 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:56, 27 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:09, 4 February 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 Arcadia Unified School District. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foothills Middle School

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

Non-notable middle school with only one reference. —Rutebega (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - School is not notable, and wikipedia is not a directory for every single school on earth. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 06:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any verifiable content, merge it to Arcadia Unified School District. (There is one cited reference plus some external links, but I'm not sure they are reliable.) Otherwise delete. The same thing should probably go for First Avenue Middle School. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to school district per cnilep. middle schools are presumed nonnotable, while high schools are presumed notable, in general, here. middle schools do not usually have notable teachers or students at the time, while high schools have notable students (usually in athletics, where their high school career is frequently noted).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Arcadia Unified School District per usual practice for non-notable middle schools. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Arcadia Unified School District per usual practice for non-notable middle schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. (When are we gonna have an RFC to bring guidelines up to established practice?) Carrite (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have had several in one form or another and in various forums. The problem is that agreement is never reached and all that happens is that vast amounts of time, that would be better spent editing, is burnt up. We have a de facto consensus and better to simply deal with schools as they appear here. Speaking personally I don't have the heart to recycle the arguments for the nth time. TerriersFan (talk) 01:55, 10 February 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.