Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (political author speaker)[edit]

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

Non notable author: 2 self published books, on iuniverse, which worldcat shows is almost no library. Appearance at country dinners of a political party is not notability , and that they would even be mentioned here shows the lack of substantial accomplishments. Writing for a website and appearing on talk shows can in rare cases be notable even if its someone's major activity, but it takes more evidence than routine announcements or citations to the shows.

This is essentially advertising, and that it was accepted at AfC is a little surprising, even given current standards there. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR with lack of reviews in reliable sources. Media coverage is just local press or non-WP:RS blogs, often only event listings. Lacks sufficient coverage to show notability. There are also problems with advertising and WP:LINKFARM (with all the links to his articles and YouTube stuff) but these aren't grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. most of the sources merely confirm he turned up and talked at a non notable event. I suspect this is self promotion and that it was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Adams (politician). LibStar (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. LibStar is quite right that this has been previously deleted. Frickeg (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar Advantage[edit]

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

Subject appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Self-published book that has minimal coverage. Fails WP:NBOOK, let alone WP:GNG. I found exactly two newspaper articles that discussed the book that weren't merely announcements of the author's lectures. One in the Sacramento Bee from 2009 and the other from the Davis Enterprise in 208. These are both partly interviews, partly book reviews, and partly press releases. Both articles were timed to promote upcoming lectures. Note that the notability guideline specifically "excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." OK, I see I got the organization confused with the book, which is being Prodded. Anyway, there's no significant coverage of the organization outside of passing mentions related to lists of speaking engagements and so forth. Fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. The Psychology Today citation seems to be a hosted blog post by an entrepreneur / archeology professor, which is not exactly what I would look for in order to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are 500 books which mention "Bipolar Advantage" and "Wootton". Psychology Today - a magazine founded in 1967, Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network have clearly decided that these article subjects are notable. note the Bipolar Advantage article with the most sources.

WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "I am Bipolar and the message Tom Wootton / Bipolar Advantage is spreading is relatively new, notable and inspiring. New insights and research can be added to these Wikipedia articles as more becomes known about the validity of Wootton's innovative approach. Please do not delete." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansgarjohn (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization with only self-referential sources. I was going to suggest a redirect to Tom Wootton but I see that his notability is in doubt as well. All three articles were created the same day by the same editor, giving this a strong promotional smell. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wootton[edit]

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

Subject appears to be non-notable. Three articles were created in close succession: Tom Wootton, Bipolar Advantage and The Bipolar Advantage that have questionable notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are 500 books which mention "Bipolar Advantage" and "Wootton". Psychology Today - a magazine founded in 1967, Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network have clearly decided that these article subjects are notable. note the Bipolar Advantage article with the most sources.

WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform." Was this done? Igottheconch (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Psych Central - the internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network"??? I've read that article that you've also recently created with the three I PRODed earlier. There are no sources that attest to the claims about Psych Central. Pscyh Central cannot, therefore, be used to support a notability claim. In addition Psych Central and The Bipolar Advantage seem to have some connection according to one of your sources: "The Biploar Advantage blog is hosted by PsychCentral". From the searches I've done for reliable sources I have not being able to find adequate references that attest to Wootton's notability. If you are contesting this nomination then I recommend you improve the article with the required sources. Right now the article depends on primary sources which are not enough to establish notability. EagerToddler39 (talk) 03:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also 37 Google scholar results for Wooton. Igottheconch (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the first 20 out of the 37:

3 are by Tom Wootton.
8 are about geology, so I'm assuming that a different person named Tom Wootton is involved.
1 is about fox terriers, so ....
2 are about proceedings of the Lutin Borough Council, so ....
1 is about a patent for soldering irons, so ....
1 leads to a bibliographic record for J.R.R. Tolkien that actually has no mention of anyone named Wootton.
1 is a list of the books possessed by some library.
2 are self-published, one of which is by someone who identifies himself as a friend of Tom Wootten, who does no more than list his books and plug his website.
Finally, just 1 is a citation of something Wootton wrote in a work associated with a university—which doesn't qualify as significant coverage of Wootten. That work does say something about him: "This is the way I would look at what needs to be done, both in a person’s own self-understanding of what it means to have bipolar disorder, as Tom Wootton has recent written about ....", quoting him but not telling us anything about him.

Extrapolating from this data, I'm assuming the remaining 17 will yield similar results: a failure to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—He is the author of self-published books that have minimal coverage. Fails WP:AUTH, let alone WP:GNG. I found exactly two newspaper articles about the guy that weren't merely announcements of his lectures. One in the Sacramento Bee from 2009 and the other from the Davis Enterprise in 2008. These are both partly interviews, partly book reviews, and partly press releases. Both articles were timed to promote upcoming lectures. This doesn't meet the minimal standard of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a compelling argument to keep this article. My own Google searches turn up nothing that's actually useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has written self-published books. He writes columns for the Huffington Post. But those things do not give him notability. What would give him notability is other, independent sources writing ABOUT him, and as far as I could find that has not happened, so he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Hills Church[edit]

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

Article makes no verifiable claims of notability. Richfife (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may exist, but existing isn't good enough to satisfy WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards (only one of 11 factors) and generally. I did a quick check of Google ("Pine Hills Church" -wikipedia + Indiana), and found nothing reliable nor unique about this church. I found out online that it hosts a polling place, a food bank, and funerals, and ... nothing else. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- looks like an ADVERT for a rather typical local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Your Battles[edit]

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

Article is not notable per WP:NSONGS (Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.): its only sourcing—reviews, etc.—is as part of the album Prism, and the South Korean charting is likewise non-notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song was specifically reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album. marginal call, but adequate for me. Korean charting worth noting, seems US-centric to say it's non-notable just because it isn't in the USA. Content extensive enough to be merged to main article if deletion favored, should not see all this person's work go to waste. Montanabw^(talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so much of based on location as it is that particular chart not being one that makes headlines or anything. I'm sure the creator put in lots of effort, and such effort can definitely go onto Katy Perry Wikia. Merge is also a fine choice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, can you please give me an example of sources where this song is "reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album"? I'm trying to figure out where you're putting the dividing line. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where the song is specifically discussed by name, even if within an overall album review. Seldom do you see much else, really, There were several sources within the article that clearly cited comments made about that specific song. To insist that a song must always be separately reviewed to be notable is rather absurd, almost all popular music reviews are of albums, and within the review, the author will note the particularly good/bad/interesting cuts off the album. You only get to individual songs being reviewed by themselves when they become grammy nominees or something, which is more than NSONGS requires. Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since almost every song nowadays charts on the South Korean chart, I'm not going to make that the reason for keeping it. Instead I believe that nowadays almost every singer discusses each one of their songs in depth, revealing some information regarding their development and production process. This is best included in individual articles, and keeping them in the main album article will make it bloated. The fact that the song charted somewhere is just the icing on the cake and even more reason to make an individual article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better to include such information on sites like Katy Perry Wikia. The simple fact is that this is one of many songs that does not exactly have enough significance to be kept. It would definitely be excessive to have all that info in the album article, but it is also excessive to have articles for every song on an album. One must ask: How did it impact the artist's career? How did it impact society?? How did it impact the music industry??? In this case, the answer to all three of those questions is: it has had little to no impact. Just stick to having articles that have received significant attention/promotion (which generally is just singles and promotional singles). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of information, certainly enough for a deluxe edition article. As long as there is enough information to make an reasonable length article, one can be created.--Giacobbe ^talk 22:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the whole point of notability guidelines is that "enough information" is not sufficient; the subject must be notable. Your argument goes against a fundamental guideline of Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance. The song fails WP:NSONGS. It simply is too soon to have this as an article since it hasn't been released as a single or promotional single or received any significant attention. Merge is fine as well, but keeping would not be a wise decision in accordance with WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." "Choose Your Battles" has plenty of quality source information and has a reasonable length, which would follow and meet the guidelines.--Giacobbe ^talk 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does have a fair amount of information, but as @BlueMoonset: mentioned..... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as it later states, notability aside, as long as there is enough information, and article can be created.--Giacobbe ^talk 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability level trumps over information amount available, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:OR, since nowhere in the guidelines does it say that. Either way, the guidelines state that an article can be created if either A)It has achieved notability OR B) There is enough information.--Giacobbe ^talk 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To quote @BlueMoonset:, "what it comes down to here, as it does with all songs (in this case), is what makes a song notable by itself: Is it very popular, is it unusual in a way that makes a wide number of people talk about it especially, do a large number of artists cover it, and so on. WP:NSONG is very specific about song notability. By the very nature of things, not every song on an album is going to be notable, regardless of how famous the artist is, or how famous the album is. The whole idea of notability is that it isn't inheritable. I have seen song articles become GAs and then be deleted entirely a couple of weeks later: an article can be quite well written and sourced, and have a bunch of information, yet be about someone or something that simply isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Having read both "Double Rainbow" and "Choose Your Dreams", I don't see that either song is notable, but I realize that my view, though backed up by the WP:NSONG criteria, may not prevail." XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that (CA)Giacobbe doesn't understand what what Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album means. What it's saying is that if the subject of an article is notable (in this case a song), it's only appropriate to write a standalone article when there's enough material to make it worthwhile. However, if the subject isn't notable, then it doesn't matter what kind of material is available. Indeed, that's the problem with all of the Keep arguments I've seen in this discussion: none of them properly address the fact that this song fails the basic tests of NSONG, and is therefore not notable. It doesn't matter how many sources you scrape up, if none of them (or even all of them combined) are adequate to establish notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance" has got to be the most contradictory statement here. Actually laughable. If it has enough information and is a good length, then significance is achieved. — ₳aron 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not sure whether my nominating this is sufficient, or whether I should specify here, too. I note that none of the arguments raised by people wanting to Keep addresses notability or WP:NSONG directly (except possibly Montanabw's, and not very convincingly); indeed, some of them seem to be arguing that it's irrelevant as long as you can write a long enough article, which vitiates the very notion of notability. This article clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for song articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the consensus here seems to be to keep the article.--Giacobbe ^talk 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. As it says on WP:AFD, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. NSONGS is a primary guideline for notability (and lack thereof in this case), and I haven't yet seen an effective marshaling of justification and evidence based on it to support a Keep argument. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did evidence OR consensus have the least thing to do with decision-making on wikipedia? :-P As far as I can tell, it's whoever screams the loudest for the longest that gets their way! "Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!. Not saying anyone here is doing that but I imagine that to believe that we actually have either process operating is to indeed be a dreamer. Montanabw^(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While four simple legs might hold more than two simple legs, there is also "one brick outweighs a pile of feathers". In this case, the bricks are "delete" and the feathers are "keep". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It charted, it's received coverage. There's really nothing you can do as it charted. We inhabit a digital world now, which means non-singles regularly chart now and more emphasis is placed on non-singles. This isn't the 90s anymore. This is supposed to be encyclopaedia, it's about time it starting being treated as a proper one. Saying that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not good enough is redundant too, where else are you meant to get info from? Does it make a difference? No. It's still a critic giving their opinion, it shouldn't matter which form it comes in. We don't live in a singles only society anymore, this is the digital era. People allow non-singles to chart on the Hot 100 now, so it shouldn't be any different on here. Also, saying that the South Korea chart isn't notable enough it a load of bullshit. It's a countries national chart. We don't say that one chart is more important than the other. Believe it or not, the music industry does not purely revolve about the United States and Billboard. What on earth is Wikipedia coming to. There used to be such a great sense of community and now it's just a battle ground of people trying to denounce the hard works of others who are tying to make this site as encyclopaedic as possible. — ₳aron 13:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see that this post was the result of WP:CANVASS (see User talk:Calvin999#Notice), but more that it completely ignores WP:NSONG in favor of the discredited "there's really nothing you can do as it charted" claim, which the 2013 revision to NSONG explicitly contradicts. As the notability guidelines make clear, only if other things about the song are true does the potential of charting come into it, and in the case of South Korea, the way the singles chart is structured means it should be used with care, since virtually every song from every popular album is going to show up on that chart the week it drops, which clearly makes the chart questionable when it comes to discerning between notable and non-notable tracks on such albums. Every song that an artist releases is not notable; that isn't how notability works on Wikipedia. A majority simply won't be—it's the nature of songs that this is so—which means the majority shouldn't be getting articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How? Leona Lewis's "Lovebird" was a single but only charted in one country, South Korea.. Should that be deleted? And @BlueMoonset: my verdict would have been the same regardless. No one asked me to vote to keep, actually, so it's not canvassing. It's try, if a song charts, it's notable. Obviously, there needs to be a fair amount of info to go with it, and I believe this article has. Everyone song has the potential to chart in every country, as I said, we live in the digital era now. Where do you expect non-singles to be reviewed? It is an invalid argument to say that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not notable. It is also invalid to that say that South Korea chart is not notable. — ₳aron 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, charting doesn't automatically equate notability. One chart alone isn't enough. It would need at least several significant chartings (regardless of location) to be notable..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then, "By the Grace of God" won't be deleted. It has charted in several charts; had coverage in various websites and magazines and was critically commented a lot. prism △ 11:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anywhere that you need more than one chart. You are clutching at straws. You only need one chart. — ₳aron 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism:, "By the Grace of God" definitely has more notability than the other non-singles/non-promo singles on the album, but it still has questionable notability. Also, "four" is less than "several". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so interested in applying this non-notability theory on songs, then I invite you to nominate an entire truck-load of song articles on Wikipedia. Almost every song nowadays, non-single or promo, is able to chart on some or the other chart, and Wikipedia is not concerned with just US Billboard charts. Like I said earlier, there is a lot people share about a song they have contributed to and stuffing that into an album article will take the focus off the album and more onto a song. (These are 1+1 articles in which there is some discussion regarding the song) Considering this, and the fact that the song has indeed charted, then what's wrong with having an article on it? Will Wikipedia collapse really? People really interested in knowing about this song and how it came about, including the really interesting fact that Perry took five months to write it, will really appreciate to read an article of it and learn different views regarding it, which may not be necessarily included the album article. Hence I rest my case --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WonderBoy1998:, as I mentioned, location of chartings is not the concern. If a song only charted in the United States or Canada for example without charting anywhere else, it also wouldn't exactly be notable. What it would need is at least several significant chartings and headlines. One chart alone isn't very significant. Viral Internet videos of songs such as "What What (In The Butt)" or "Harlem Shake" on the other hand don't need chartings, nor do other Internet memes. The info for this track would certainly be welcomed at Katy Perry Wikia, where I strongly recommend it be added to since it fails WP:NSONGS XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad that you repeated the comment you're making everytime, that national charts don't matter and that the article is welcome at Katy Perry Wikia. I didn't understand the first time, I'm sure. I am grateful. Now please devote some time in editing and improving articles --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine to me. Everyking (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to have to say this, but it most certainly is not "fine" that this fails WP:NSONGS XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop stalking every user's comment and spamming it with your opinion? This is a joined project where everybody can give its opinion! You give yours, Everyking his, so just stop the drama. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's like you come to Wikipedia just to comment on this page, try some editing too, maybe that's the main point of Wikipedia, I think. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry- I come to the site for more than just this page, and often edit other articles..... Also, I wasn't exactly "spamming" or "stalking"..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have the feeling that you literally sleep on this page, commenting and spamming right after a user says "Keep". Oh, and you really want to talk about your edits? Should I show you how many wrong writer/producer infoboxes you changed and I have to come everytime to repair them? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not fully determined by charts, and just a quick glance at the article shows that there is plenty of information to supply its own article. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick WikiRedactor! Be prepared! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to Prism (Katy Perry album) – Charting alone (in this case, at a rather low position on a download chart) does not necessarily establish notability (WP:NSONGS), and other than a couple of critics' comments taken from reviews of Prism and the like there isn't much coverage from other non-trivial published works present in the article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it charts at 1 or 100, on the Hot 100 or the Jazz Songs chart, a chart position is a chart position and a chart is a chart. So that point is irrelevant. And where do you expect critic info to come from apart from album reviews. So, I assume that album reviews which talk about a single can't be included in a single-released article then? Only singles reviews? People are bending to the rules to suit them. We don't distinguish between charts or sort them into "your opinion of importance." I'm pretty sure that people from South Korea would contest your argument. — ₳aron 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "bending to the rules" to suit my opinion. WP:NSONGS is an established community notability guideline, and one point clearly reads: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." 7 of just 14 sources in this article originate from album reviews, 2 come from liner notes and the iTunes page for the album, and 3 more sources discuss the album's recording without mentioning the song itself. The Idolator source gives one short tidbit that Perry wrote the song in 5 months, and that itself is actually taken from one of her tweets, so that doesn't qualify as an independent source. Even if I hadn't factored the chart position it reached and the nature of the chart itself into my argument, nonetheless the point "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." is clearly delineated as a factor that suggests "that a song or single may be notable (not "is notable"), though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." I have no qualms with single articles containing sources from album reviews, but the notability of those articles is usually established by the presence of independent sources on other information (chart positions/certifications, commercial performance, music videos/promotion, accolades and awards, etc.) In this case, I feel that the article needs more of these independent, published sources to justify its notability. Holiday56 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And all of what you just said is why WP:NSONGS is so flawed. Where else do you get critic reviews of songs from? Album reviews, which now in this era are usually track by track. If anything, track by track album reviews are basically individual song reviews. The quote about charting is also flawed, because South Korea is a country with a national chart. I think South Koreans would disagree with you if you said that their chart is not significant. If someone such as Idolator reports and comments on her Tweets about the song, which come form her official Twitter account, then yes that is a reliable source of information, as a reliable source is reporting on it. Please, your whole paragraph is non-sensical and flawed. As I said before, we live in the digital era and there is such a wealth of information that putting all this info into the album article would result in Prism being too long, and then people would complain about that, too. — ₳aron 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether WP:NSONGS is flawed or not, one cannot just dismiss it like that. Also, the charting not being seen as notable has nothing to do with geographic location. Because it definitely would be excessive to add all of this track's info to the album page, it would be condensed and incorporated into the Prism article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for good reason, so keep.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSONGS 174.252.50.7 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NON-ADMIN CLOSURE

Seems to be strong Keep consensus--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Stone of Losses[edit]

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

The only substantial references I can find to this phrase in scholarly literature are to a book of poetry by one T. Carmi who apparently does not have an article here. If I exclude the title of the book I get no GBook hits. I would expect some hits in either if this were a real thing. I would contemplate redirecting to the poet but lacking an article that isn't possible. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a (probably) bad translation of the Hebrew name (which I have forgotten, but should be able to find) of a well-known feature of the Temple Mount. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found: the Hebrew name has two variants, אבן הטועים‎ Even haTo'im and אבן הטוען‎ Even haTo'en. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about English sources? Mangoe (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any yet; I'm not sure what the standard translation is. The first variant roughly translates as "the Stone of the Lost"; I can't make sense out of the second variant.

As for Hebrew sources, metaphorical use of the Hebrew phrase as "a place (or book or service) to found something lost (or information, etc.)" greatly complicates searching, but that in itself should give an idea of how notable the topic probably is.

Also, here is a short chapter summarizing what is known about the Stone from traditional Jewish sources (originally published as הגאוגרפיה במשנה‎ [Geography in the Mishnah] by Ben-Zion Segal (1979), pp. 3–4 LCCN 79-952217). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English variants found so far: (translating Even haTo'im) "Stone of Losses", "Stone of the Lost", "Stone of the Strayers", "Strayers' Stone"; (translating Even haTo'en) "Claimant's Stone", "Stone of the Claimant", "Announcing Stone". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carmi seems to be the only source for this variant. According to what I can extrapolate from this snippet-view book it seems that this variant was invented by the translator of Carmi's works from Hebrew to English. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make the proper corrections to render it into correct current English, since User הסרפד (talk · contribs) seems to be lining up good scholarly sources for the term, although let's wait to see how he actually votes. IZAK (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, but I'm not sure what should be done. The stone in question is mentioned only twice in the Talmud, and once only in passing. In later literature it is referred to many times, but again only in passing. The only in-depth source I could find is Segal. I think a merge would be more appropriate, but to which page? Also, I cannot find any standard English translation of the term. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest to post it on the Judaism notice board to get more visibility instead of rushing to merge. --Shuki (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, Shuki, that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism is for, but many Wikiproject Judaism noticeboard regulars are apparently not aware of WP:DELJEW's existence. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wily D 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jaid Barrymore[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. She married into a famous family but hasn't done anything on her own. PrairieKid (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I could find always link Jaid to her daughter Drew. Unless she does something noteworthy that would warrant an article of her own, delete. Alexius08 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to delete all three articles PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptobank[edit]

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

Article with no sourcing and seemingly was created by a SPA to help promote his own cryptobank, Coinkite, which is also being put up for deletion. Despite a article in the Toronto Star, it's not enough to warrant an article. An related article not created by the same user is in even worse shape, and unlike Coinkite, I can't find anything on it. The two stores fail WP:GNG, etc. However, I would not be opposed to moving Cryptobank into the Article Incubator or even userspace (personally, I would be happy to work on it from time to time).

Here are the companion articles:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : "Cryptobank" isn't a real term.Chris Arnesen 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree See en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Cryptobank --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 23:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete : Bitcoiniacs got a lot of press for being the "world's first bitcoin ATM"Chris Arnesen 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a burst of recent media coverage, including from the Reuters and UPI, but to me it falls short of the "significant coverage" standard in WP:N. While there are stories that focus on the company itself, many of the articles are more interested in the "first Bitcoin ATM", which is built by a different company, Robocoins. Bitcoiniacs was the first customer, and did receive coverage as a result, but it's a little bit incidental, and may have been fleeting. ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I hadn't read the articles closely enough. I've changed my "vote" to delete.Chris Arnesen 19:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Coinkite. Not notable. Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)Chris Arnesen 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So which one is it Chris--keep or delete? You can't vote both in the same discussion. Jinkinson talk to me 01:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jinkinson: If I'm not mistaken, this one page is being used to discuss the potential deletion of three different related articles, Cryptobank and the two articles that link to that article, Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs. My vote is to ~~keep Bitcoiniacs but delete both Cryptobank and Coinkite~~ delete all three.Chris Arnesen 09:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cryptobank. Not notable. Cannot locate its use in any books or academic articles, nor in a cursory web search for reliable sources. (It did occur in one novel, and as a fictional example company name in a cryptography book, but not in the sense it is used here). ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coinkite. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bitcoinacs. Not notable. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, please sign this! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I only signed first delete; have signed all three now. ––Agyle (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest breaking Bitcoinacs out to a seperate afd. It was created by a different user, is a business with a physical product, and as Chris Arnesen notes above, has had a different level of coverage from the other two subjects.Dialectric (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coinkite and Bitcoiniacs, enough notable. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G12. It also smells somewhat of a fan-made creation, as I can't entirely find anything official and reliable that says that this movie was actually ever a real consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Arnold!: The Jungle Movie[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article rife with original research and rumors involving a planned second Hey Arnold! film. If any of this content even deserves to survive, it should be merged into Hey Arnold! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, and poorly sourced. I don't think the content should be merged, either. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12 appiled Entire article is wholesale ripped from the Hey Arnold Wikia...unacceptable, reliable or not. Outside of that it just seems like a whole lot of fanon theories about a film that will never be. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brandeburg[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A string of false and questionable citations (see this version) take the wind out of the sails of this biography. When verifiable sources are used, he appears to be a prolific but not terrible notable author of financial planning guides. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not one of the sources mentions him except when written by him (and otherwise fails GNG/BIO). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.LM2000 (talk) 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After removing the ambiguous and advertising-type language, what's left is an author who has published ten books in a single year. As stated above, he appears to be a prolific author but much of the garbage included had to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:F7C0:E200:3496:7463:AE26:CD64 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As far as I know, none of the Wikipedia policies for notability rely on a number of publications. The important thing is how many other people have written about him or his publications (see also WP:NPEOPLE --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An update of the amazon page displays two additional titles authored by brandeburg in 2013. That brings the total to 12 published books with ISBN citation in a year. It seems incorrect to say not notable just because he writes in a genre you don't avidly read. With 12 titles one could make the argument that he's notable in the field of business and personal finance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:F7C0:E200:3496:7463:AE26:CD64 (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Again, prolificity does not equal notability. An author could churn out a book a day, but if they are all drivel that no one cares about, what difference does it make? (Note: I am not claiming that Brandeburg's books are drivel -- I just make the example to make a point.) An author is notable if other writers have written about him: if his books receive serious reviews in reliable sources, or if the author himself is the subject of significant profiles in reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment As a follow-on, the two new books added by the IP editor are History of Economic Theory, Volume 1 (Coventry House, 2013; ISBN 9780615824826) (whose proper title is History of Economic Theory: The Selected Writings of Adam Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say, and J. R. Mcculloch) and History of Economic Theory, Volume 2 (Coventry House, 2013; ISBN 9780615817897) (whose proper title is History of Economic Theory: The Selected Essays of T. R. Malthus, David Ricardo, Frederic Bastiat, and John Stuart Mill). Brandeburg is not listed as the author of either work. He may be the editor, but if so, he is uncredited. These books appear to be a collection of public domain writings by economists of the past, gathered and published with little indication as to any editorial authority or oversight. If this is the type of book Brandeburg is taking credit for, it is unlikely he is garnering any significant coverage for it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC
  - Comment Google search returned writing credit for PBS movie and interview with Young Money (magazine). Added to career section for Brandeburg page. Also career was discussed in separate book here: http://books.google.com/books?id=Aq-aY60D1B0C&pg=PA112&dq=%22matthew+brandeburg%22+careers+in+focus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HFTcUpKLOIXd2QXJtIH4AQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22matthew%20brandeburg%22%20careers%20in%20focus&f=false as part of same google search. Note this wiki page was created in 2011.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Brandeburg is credited as a "contributing writer" at the IMDb site for Your Life, Your Money, he is not credited at the show's official website, which I would consider a much more reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kept.. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party Rule Book[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that there is anything that can be encyclopaedically said about the rule book of a politcal party beyond the lead of this article (which is better with context in the main Labour Party article). Everything else is a list of the chapter headings taken directly from [1] (which afaict has no explicitly copyright status, but I don't know if this can be copyrighted?). The only part here with any encyclpoaedic coverage is Clause IV, which has its own article already. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Every association has a constitution, some have provisions which become contested over time, depending on circumstances and lines of forces. In this case, the main ground of contestation is already well covered at Clause IV and the organisation itself and its history at Labour Party (UK). In that context, I see no need for this article, either in its own right or as a redirect. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is useful because it publicises some important elements of one of the oldest and most significant political parties in the world. Wik idea 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What useful elements are they? There is hardly any actual information in this article, and all of that is already in Labour Party (UK) and/or Clause IV. The party isn't really one of the world's oldest either (founded 1900), compare for example Conservative Party (UK) (formally constituted 1834, origins go back to 1670s), Republican Party (United States) (1854), Democratic Party (United States) (ca. 1828), True Whig Party (Liberia, 1869), etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You could actually write about amendments and changes made to the Labour Party Rule Book, it hasn't remained the same throughout its existance, and probably underwent radical changes in several cases, as when Tony Blair removed Clause IV.. Keep, similar to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China. --TIAYN (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would surely be better covered at History of the Labour Party (UK) with spinout articles like Clause IV where needed. Any significant changes in the constitution would need to be discussed in the context of the politics of the era in which it happened which would be out of scope for an article about the rule book itself. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its called a "History" section, its normal in most articles.. This topic is notable, probably not that many people who are interested in it, but it is still notable. --TIAYN (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge -- Plain deletion is certainly inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron, Inappropriately nominated. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Davey2010: I'm going to have to ask you the same question, as Peterkingiron hasn't answered: Why is deletion inappropriate? Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Labour Party Rule Book is notable, and not just for Clause IV. So far as I can tell, the British Labour Party has allowed far more importance to its Rule Book than most political parties (certainly than the British Conservative Party), and internal disputes about the organisation of the Labour Party - about selection of parliamentary candidates, election of the Party leader, the relative size of trade union and individual membership representation at Party Conference, the existence of pressure groups within the Party, and so on - have almost always beeen framed around proposed changes to the Rule Book. And a number of these disputes have been discussed almost as widely outside the Labour Party, when they occurred and afterwards, as the ones about Clause IV. Several internal party groupings (the one that comes most to mind is the probably notable Campaign for Labour Party Democracy) have, indeed, focussed on proposing or opposing changes to Party rules almost to the exclusion of wider policy issues. Moreover, the argument that matters concerning Labour Party organisation and rules are adequately dealt with in Labour Party and History of the Labour Party does not really stand up - these probably rightly put their primary focus on Labour's governmental and external political record or on disputes about policy rather than on disputes about Party organisation which, while influenced by outside events, have often had a dynamic of their own. However, the almost unsourced article under discussion doesn't cover these either, and apparently never has done so. Wikipedia could do with a good and well-sourced article on this or a closely related topic but, at least currently, this isn't it. PWilkinson (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touch! Generations Soundtrack[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NALBUMS. There are no reliable sources that significantly cover the subject to establish the wp:notability per wp:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as per WP:NALBUMS Flat Out let's discuss it 05:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. However, important information can be merged to the parent article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to indicate that this satisfies the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07[edit]

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

Non-notable live album, hasn't received any significant coverage from third parties. hinnk (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUS. "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." XXX antiuser ^eh? 22:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable release by notable singer. fails WP:MUS per antiuser above. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Róisín Murphy discography as per WP:NALBUMS. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable by itself, anything worth mentioning can go to Róisín Murphy discography.LM2000 (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Becnel[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Becnel is a Virginia private investigator who has served as past-president of his state's trade association (marginal) and who has been used as a source in some articles. The articles do not appear to be about him, but rather simply rely on him as an informed source. Given the hype that was included in the article originally (see the page history, and the talk page discussion), one can presume that the author may be trying to promote this subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The original version of Philip Becnel's page was accurate, but the references that could be cited using available online sources left the page tagged with multiple "not in citation given" notations. Those tags marked "not in citation given" were well-deserved because the reference sources did not say verbatim what the preceding sentence claimed to be true. After recognizing this, and in an attempt to remedy the errors, the Wikipedia page was modified to match the citations provided. Now all the information on the page is verifiable using the reference that follows each sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwriter112 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original version of the page was impressive, and if it had been borne out by the sources, would easily have met the criteria for inclusion. The rewritten page, pared down to the facts that are actually supported by the sources, is somewhat less impressive and rather run-of-the-mill. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of whether Mr. Becnel is a “pioneer” or not in using behavioral analysis in vetting plaintiff for law firms, while the Washington Post article cited does not use that exact phrase it is clearly implied in the story where Mr. Becnel approached the attorney after he lost a sexual harassment suit. The absence of any publication anywhere that mentions this topic prior to this article should be sufficient to show that Mr. Becnel is a pioneer in this field. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/value-added-the-business-case-of-the-arlington-private-eye/2012/03/02/gIQA38DSrR_story.html

Claiming that Becnel is a pioneer in this field based on your inability to find references to anyone preceding him in the field is the most egregious example of synthesis I've seen at Wikipedia in qute some time. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Need sources about Becnel that say something other than president of trade association (i.e. trivial mention). Fails WP:NPERSON. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP – Note that this Fed Times article cites Becnel as an “expert in background checks”: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130707/ACQUISITION03/307070009/CBP-secret-deal-bury-investigator-s-past-misconduct-questioned and this one refers to him as a “widely sought expert on criminal matters”: http://www.ohio.com/news/local/experts-debate-terror-survival-and-stockholm-syndrome-in-cleveland-kidnappings-1.398845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.54.75 (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither article is about Becnel; both use him as a source for background material on the story at hand, but that is not the same as coverage of him as a subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zealong[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this particular brand; the refs are basically PR, despite being published in newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Favoring keeping: WP:RFD#KEEP 1/ New Zealand tea is peculiar enough that some people in the tea world find it useful and interesting that there is more to tea than tea bag, Indian black, and supermarket brand. Same goes for Nepal tea, Malawi's exceptional white teas, or Taiwan's high mountain teas. Zealong also contributes to New Zealand's exports by adding to the usual milk powder and fine wines. 2/ The article does not advertise nor comment on the quality of the products. 3/ Many other tea brands have a wikipedia page, when they are far from being the sole representative of a country's industry: Mariage_Frères Upton_Tea_Imports Le_Palais_des_Thés Twinings Lipton Charleston_Tea_Plantation etc. (signed: User: Fogull)
delete with a nod to the quality of New Zealand tea, the matter at hand is the encyclopedic notability of the subject. Having not read the other tea articles, I . cannot comment on their subjects' notability. This subject lacks significant coverage in verifiable sources unconnected with the subject. A fine tea it may well be, but the subject does not meet notability requirements for an encyclopedia article. Dloh cierekim 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Noted as the first commercial tea plantation in New Zealand. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SimonLyall (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as company has reasonable independent coverage in mainstream media. Needs work but should be easily able to meet notability guidelines. NealeFamily (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piglet Meets Max's Electric Company[edit]

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

This movie does not exist. Google goves 0 hits. [2] Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability if it even does exist...I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax. I've tagged it for that reason. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit-perfect[edit]

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

No references for a few years now Львівське (говорити) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Audio and video interfaces and connectors, depending on whether reliable sources can substantiate anything. Topic doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. Searching Google Books, it wasn't clear whether it was a real term, or a misunderstanding of a descriptive term; many things are called "bit-perfect" or "bit-to-bit perfect" copies, meaning a lossless copy of digital data, which could be one use for this so-called "bit-perfect" audio signal standard. However, doing a normal web search for "bit perfect audio output" turns up quite many occurrences in forums and other sources that wouldn't qualify as reliable, but do suggest it's being properly used. One case U found where it was used as described in the article is from a magazine called "Hi-fi news", in 2008:

“The iTransport, which is certified Made for iPod®, turns any currently available iPod player into a high-end media server by providing a bit-perfect digital audio output to an audio/ video system, bypassing the player's internal ...”

––Agyle (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gordon Rush. The brand article has been renamed to Gordon Rush, and this will be redirected to that article, as per the consensus PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Rush (designer)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Might be worth a redirect to Gordon Rush (brand), but nothing worth merging. Boleyn (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Gordon Rush (brand) to Gordon Rush which is currently set up as a pointless redirect page to both designer and brand pages. The brand page also needs cleaning up and work. Mabalu (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Peridon (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skeat Dogwoods[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. Sources present on the article are all non-independent sources, and I cannot find any independent reviews, interviews, or awards to support the notability for performers or the general notability guidelines. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was also nominated for speedy deletion. Tried to cancel the AfD, but it still went through for some reason. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. In keeping with the usual custom, contributions from editors with few or no contributions on other topics have not been counted. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff McCormick[edit]

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

Promotional article written about an independent candidate in an upcoming gubernatorial election. Subject appears to be notable for only one event as the only sources in the article that are not from McCormick's business or campaign websites are about his announcement for Governor. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability is not apparent. Per our frequent practice with unelected candidates who are not otherwise notable, we could consider a redirect to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
week Delete Even if he is notable for only one event i'm still not shure about deleting an article about a election candidate.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN Dloh cierekim 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is both fair and unbiased. Mr. McCormick is a very well known businessman and current gubernatorial candidate from Massachusetts. Mr McCormick has an extremely professional resume including his well known lacrosse and business career. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Running12345 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — Running12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Running12345: Please provide information from verifiable sources to support subject's notability. Please see a summary of requirements at user:Dloh/i2 Dloh cierekim 00:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014 A redirect to a page about the election is an appropriate and usual outcome for candidates running for a sub-national executive position. Enos733 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In addition to being a candidate for governor he was a successful businessman and collegiate athlete. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep'" per very good details. Credible. Furthermore, there are reliable sources. McCormick was a very well regarded lacrosse player at a top school. Furthermore, McCormick is a very well known businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Running12345 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Running12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
'"Keep'" per very good details. Credible. Furthermore, there are reliable sources. McCormick was a very well regarded lacrosse player at a top school. Furthermore, McCormick is a very well known businessman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.27.3 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — 24.63.27.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article seems to be well written and fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.27.3 (talk) 02:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — 24.63.27.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Because McCormick is a well known businessman and philanthropist, he is notable per wikipedia's policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodo2921 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC) — Dodo2921 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak Keep - While WP:POLITICIAN would suggest the title should redirect to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014, there are multiple independent reliable sources with articles specifically about McCormick, so he meets the general notability criteria. SchreiberBike talk 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well-sourced and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2014 A redirect to a page about the election is the general way to deal with these. If he wins, an article can be re-created. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Savant Young[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - only one top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Passes WP:NMMA. Despite his journeyman's record, he has fought four times in four different top-tier organizations (Bellator, Affliction, Shooto and WEC). Poison Whiskey 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears he has fought in multiple top tier promotions and not just one as required by WP:NMMA . Mkdw ^talk 21:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haian He[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMICS. No reliable sources have been provided. Moreover, the article is likely to fail the GNG due to insufficient media coverage. Alex^{discussion ★} 19:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and only slim claim to notability apears to be the mathematics prizes, which do not seem that impressive. Recreation of an article speedied a couple of hours ago.TheLongTone (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON to have achieved notability by any of the WP:PROF standards. The student awards explicitly do not count towards that standard and also don't seem to be enough for WP:GNG. Consider salting given the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Per David Eppstein. Non-notable doctoral student; h-index of 3; non-notable regional student prizes. -- 101.119.26.128 (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grad students can be notable, but this one isn't... --Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Smales[edit]

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

Mr Smales is not yet notable. One day, if he works hard, he will be. The sole reference that may hold water is in the Hull Daily Mail, but this is an article about him as a student being unable to afford his tuition fees. It's an appeal page, but not, absolutely not, an article that gives him any notability, except for the event of his needing to raise the money.

This article is the basis of a decent future article, and I have no objection to its re-creation once Mr Smales is notable. I'm afraid that is not yet the case. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Frankly, qualifies under both A7 & G11, subject is entirely non notable and this article has been repeatedly recreated and thus is spam. However, let the AfD run to completion so this **** can be speedily deleted under G4 in the future. Safiel (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quite obviously non-notable. If it continues to be recreated, it may need to be salted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for additional sources to assist in establishing notability did not produce any results. Agree with Tim, notability is not yet established. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject. PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no question, below notability threshold.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Cuban rafter[edit]

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

All individuals listed failed WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. Article as a whole fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there any question this article fail WP:GNG--Jeffrd10 (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge closer should move the sourced content to Balseros (rafters). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LM2000 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Concur with nominators assessment. Finnegas (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Picone[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No top tier fights and no significant coverage, so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List_of_Internet_phenomena#Other_phenomena. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff the Killer[edit]

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

Farcical, obscure, contrived topic not worthy of recognition MichaelFatson (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, non-notable "alias" of a real person. Unencyclopedic tone, appears to be original research. —Josh3580_talk/hist 04:10, 31 December 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 December 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Internet_phenomena#Other_phenomena. Finding actual RS for this is fairly difficult, but it's hard to deny that this is a fairly big internet meme. As such, I think that it'd be worthwhile to have a short blurb for this on the list of Internet phenomena and just redirect there. We can pretty much sum the entire JtK meme up in a few sentences: "Jeff the Killer is an Internet creepypasta meme that has been circulating since 2008. The meme's origins are unknown, but popular theories have the meme originating from a bullied girl's 4chan post or viral marketing for Saw V. Jeff the Killer has been compared to Slenderman and the meme has inspired an independent game and several gaming mods." The sources on the page should back all of that up. I'll try to find sources, but so far this looks like it'd be best served as a small mention on another page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per WP:PRESERVE and Tokyogirl79's well-considered and constructive proposal.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Fresh: Christmas Songs From Past to Present[edit]

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

Individual articles of Christmas editions from the So Fresh series. They receive no significant coverage in reliable sources and fail the notability requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed lots of ghits, but not enough substantial coverage per nom. Present articles currently consisting mostly or entirely of tracklists doesn't instill confidence either. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Cookie cutter compilation albums such as this are rarely reviewed and receive virtually no serious coverage in reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LSM (Zeiss)[edit]

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

Not notable. LSM is the prefix used on many Zeiss products but I can't find a reference that it's actually the "name of a product line." The lsm file format is only a modified tif format. The article contains no references only external links mostly to tools that use the lsm format Mllyjn (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason for an independent article, and it has no references. If verifiable information can be found, merge it into a larger Zeiss article.I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no WP:V or redirect to Aeiss if sourcing found. Dloh cierekim 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merge discussion might be a good way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard Trabant[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Any remarkable content-I cant see much if any- can be merged to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully decline this logic. To include such information of the at least 138 victims of the Berlin Wall would make for one exceptionally and ridiculously long article! Besides, Hildegard Trabant has had an article on German Wiki since 2009, and nobody thinks her article there should be deleted. Or did you overlook this? Numerous other victims of the Berlin Wall are also here on English Wiki, including, but not limited to Marienetta Jirkowsky, Ida Siekmann, and Peter Fechter; what makes Hildegard Trabant different from these three? Brewer Bob (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in wikipedia jargon WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because similar articles exist is not an argument. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. History is full of victims. Of the three you link to the first is simply a name and a date &c plus a load of pictures. It's a clear candidate for deletion or redirectin/merging to the article I linked to above. The second is basically the same, but has a lengthy preamble on the Berlin Wall. The third is the only one which deserves a separate article, because there were events consequent on the incident. Most of the people in List of deaths at the Berlin Wall do not have individual articles. Hope this clarifies things.TheLongTone (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least meets our notability guidelines for a biography. In addition to the sources in the article there are these: [3] [4] [5] [6]. According to WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" This subject meets the criteria by having in depth coverage in two sources, and minor coverage in several independent sources.- Mr X 18:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she passes WP:BASIC she is still falls foul of WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think there is much strength in the point of view the the one event is their being killed: surely the one event is Berlin Wall killings as a group. Otherwise, they are just a murder victim, and most murder victims are not notable. It's the context of the Wall that confers notability, & therefore WP:ONEEVENT applies.TheLongTone (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, WP:ONEEVENT is a portion of a larger guideline, and in this case, it's not absolutely clear what has to be done. What that leaves us with is editorial judgement, thus the value of these sorts of discussions.- Mr X 20:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, would there be enough for a supportable biography article leaving out the woman's death? Unless the third link given above contains something startling, (the other two are solely about Wall incidents) the answer is an unequivocal No. Hence, the article merits deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't noticed the fourth link, which mainly features the eponymous East German car-substitute, with one mention of the woman, again as a wll shooting victim. Hardly substantial in depth &c. All thes refs do is reinforce verifyability.TheLongTone (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Applying WP:ONEEVENT would be seriously going against the intent of the guideline which is weeding out practically non-notable content that we would deem notable by means of GNG because of a short burst of news reports. Death at the inner German border have been the subject of longterm reporting and study as well as courtcases after the unification. In this particular case the perpetrator was sentenced 34 years later, something our article es not even mention. Notable as a person of historical significance not a random victim of a tabloid shooting. Agathoclea (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That, if included, would be a reason to keep the article.TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of NOT MEMORIAL. To justify a separate article, there needs to be good evidence that her fate was regarded as particularly symbolic, beyond that of the many others killed trying to escape East Germany. The technical meeting of the GNG is not a reason why we have to make an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verbiage added attesting that her death was rather unique; 1) unlike most, her death was totally unnoticed in West Berlin; 2) when she was actually shot, she was no longer attempting to flee East Berlin, but merely trying to avoid arrest; and 3) out of at least 138 Berlin Wall victims, only eight were women.Brewer Bob (talk) 14:13, 1 Jauary 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.217.201 (talk)

Are you seriously arguing that because her death was little noticed , she is therefore the more notable? 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs citing.TheLongTone (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a reference from the official Berlin Wall Memorial. But I'm reluctant to keeping the article and would rather merge it to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall. De728631 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a truly heroic effort by the page craetor to write it up, I still don't see this as anything more than a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Like others, I see little notable in this bio. The only unusual feature seems to be that it was unknown in the West until after the fall of the Berlin Wall. On the other hand, merely redirecting to the list feels too drastic. Could we turn the list into a free-standing article that would allow room for some brief biographic details of all victims? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Deaths...is in fact a substantial article: the list itself is a table within that article that has a field for additional details.TheLongTone (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to List of deaths at the Berlin Wall There is not sufficient notability for a free standing article. We do not need to memorialize every victim of governmental repression. Dloh cierekim 23:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. A textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT. She has no notability outside her death, and it had no historical significance on its own. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Coleman[edit]

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

Not notable. Refs don't satisfy GNG and can't find any better. Most of her claim to notability seems to stem from her membership of Dalla, so perhaps should be selectively merged there. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:People. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side hug[edit]

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

Afd:Terminology is largely a neologism from a satirical rap song, does not appear in dictionaries, and no reliable sources suggest otherwise. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is fully attested by the reliable sources in the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 29 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are adequate enough to cover GNG concerns.LM2000 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator, and I can't understand how these sources here are reliable for "side-hug", as none of them are actually about "side-hugging". They're all references to a satirical YouTube rap video. If these are the sources, the page should be about the rap video, not about a neologism coined by the rap video.
Of the seven sources, three are missing any reference to side-hug (or are bad links); three are from a single feminist blog (or directly copied from it); and one is a newspaper article. Every source is about the YouTube rap video "Christian side hug", and every source is satirical. How does any of this validate a neologism? TricksterWolf (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real existence. See the alleged sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe types of hugs are really credible enough to need an encyclopaedia entry. The sources listed don't really establish credibility and most of them deal with an irrelevant rap song. Bailmoney27 ^talk 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hug. The article doesn't have enough information to warrant it's own article, but the topic is real and there is content worthy of a merge. --50.124.106.22 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Tough more references are required but the page seems worth keeping, merge is also a viable option. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hug. Really not sure the youtube rap video worthy of mention in the article, but you could at least have a brief mention of "side hug" in the hug article. I am aware of this practice's prominence within the Evangelical abstinence movement, but if that's the reason we're keeping it, it could just as easily be merged to another related article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Never heard it called a "side hug" before, but the topic seems to be rather notable.--Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Agree with Rafaelgriffin Jed 20012 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gobbledygook. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bafflegab[edit]

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

We already have an article on the concept of unintelligible jargon: Gobbledygook. This article would be better suited to a dictionary, as it has no encyclopedic content. Powers ^T 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It would be better for both pages. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? There's no encyclopedic content here to merge. Powers ^T 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have numerous pages of this sort: bloviation; circumlocution; corporate jargon; doublespeak; double-talk; gibberish; gobbledygook; legalese; mumbo jumbo; sesquipedalianism; technobabble; and more. There is perhaps some redundancy here but this is no reason to delete anything as they are all plausible search terms for the core concept. By maintaining multiple pages, we cast our net wide to catch the various histories and different shades of meaning. Our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Word histories and shades of meaning are the province of dictionaries, not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It seems that several closely-related concepts would be best covered in a single article in order to avoid a) duplication, b) confusion over which article a sourced statement should go into, and c) confusion over which article should be linked. Powers ^T 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two or three sourced sentences to Gobbledygook. Per WP:NOTDIC, different names for the same thing are... wait for it... the same thing. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As noted below, there is consensus that the nominator's complaint is really one about content (and no consensus to apply WP:TNT), and the sole WP:LISTN argument is without other support (and arguably rebutted by Arxiloxos). postdlf (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Basketball Association season minutes leaders[edit]

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

This list is largely incorrect and therefore has to be remade from scratch. The minutes leaders in the NBA are and have always been determined by total minutes played, not by minutes per game average. Hoops gza (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Default speedy close looks like a content dispute, there's not one iota of justification for deletion of this article in the nomination. Time wasted? Check. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (EC). The nomination provides no rationale for deletion. If revisions to the list are needed those are to be addressed at the article's Talk page. AFD is not a forum for cleanup. --do ncr am 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The proper forum for this discussion is at WT:NBA. Most stat leaders are based on per game averages and not totals. The WP:RS for this statistic uses average.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stat leaders are based on how they are discussed in reliable sources, which do not follow a general rule of always being an average or always a total. Nobody refers to average games played for games played leaders. The article sites both an average http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_yearly.html and total from basketball-reference.com http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_yearly.html, so even the RS doesnt tout one over another.—Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original AFD rationale aside, is there any evidence that WP:LISTN is met, namely that this grouping is discussed in reliable sources? All I see are sources from pure stats sites.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN, as I couldn't find any reliable sources that were non-pure statistics sites that discuss this grouping. If this was discussed in enough sources, it would also be clear if the grouping should be based on total minutes played or average minutes. Moreover, the general references cited in the article from basketball-reference.com has links to both average minutes leaders http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_per_g_yearly.html and total minutes leaders http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mp_yearly.html. Therefore, it's not even clear from the cited basketball-reference.com which is the more common grouping. It seems the nominator's concern with inappropriate entry critieria for the list, which some have said is a content issue, is in fact born from the list's lack of notability.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The first three !votes argue for a procedural close and keep due to the nominators rationale being a content issue. Given my delete !vote due to lack of notability, hopefully those earlier !votes are either withdrawn or ignored.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The list is reliably sourced to the same source used by almost all the lists at Template:NBA statistical leaders. Since when does a reliable source have to be pure or non-pure anything? Why don't we hold a discussion at WP:NBA on what counts as a notable statistic. The list has reason to cite both main references and this list does not preclude someone from creating a total minutes played list.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN is a community guideline, that a project would need good reason to ignore. You are arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF, but a list could be notable without sources because it is obviously notable and nobody wants to be disruptive and contest that the WP:SKYISBLUE. Notability, not verifiability of stats does apply, as WP:NOTSTATS guards against a list being created for every random stat list at [7]. As the nominator made a good faith argument that the criteria is not notable, it seems reasonable that references should be identified to prove average minutes played leaders, or any minutes played leaders, are discussed as a group.—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- this is an example of a minute played per game article from a RS. Other exmaples include [8].-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first source is from the Yahoo Contributor Network, which is a blog service anyone can write for and should not be considered reliable. See the bottom where it says "This article was written by a Yahoo! contributor. Sign up here to start publishing your own sports content." The author is not an employee of Yahoo Sports. The second source does not make any mention of the group of annual minutes leaders. LISTN says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is unclear whether the Contributor Network has an editorial process or not (which is the determining factor for whether it is an RS), but they seem to be paid, which makes it likely that they have an editorial process. I don't see why the second reference does not count as "the grouping or set in general".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not my reason for deleting the article. The point is that the National Basketball Association does track "minutes leaders" and the official criteria has always been total minutes played, not minutes per game average. You can see the list of minutes leaders in any edition of the Official NBA Guide and it will show that it is total minutes. The most recent edition is available here on pages 130 and 131: [9]. This is what is meant by "leading the league in minutes". We can't have an article on Wikipedia that is titled "List of National Basketball Association season minutes leaders" that is half incorrect.Hoops gza (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So User:Hoops gza, are you arguing that the content of the article is incorrect, or that the article shouldn't exist? I'm unclear. Please help me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is incorrect. But since it basically has to be remade from scratch, I thought that it might be better to delete it. This was wrong and mininformed in hindsight.Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, suggest this is snow closed as the original nomination is not correctly instigated. If content discussion needs to take place, it can take place on the talk page or at a Wikiproject or similar. AFD is not the place for the place for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither this current article, or the proposed changed content to total minutes played, meets LISTN. Seems like we would be creating more work to procedurally close this on a technicality just to reopen another one, when we can simply continue with this already open AdD and discuss its notability.Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOte that ESPN considers minutes per game to be a notable statistic and they keep track of the leaders here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NBA.com keeps track of the stat here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And NBA.com also has total—not average—minutes here. In short, there is no end to the stats that websites will produce. Hence, WP:NOTSTATS.—Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is misleading to make the argument that the page you pointed to shows total minutes. It shows total points, rebounds, assists and steals, but there is no one saying that the NBA recognizes total leaders in any of those categories. The official leadership statistic is the link I presented above, which is average minutes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's not get sidetracked. The only sources that have been provided are more stats listings that show the grouping for season minutes leaders; we know stats sites exist. However, no reliable sources have been identified that discuss the grouping in prose. To me, LISTN is not met, and NOTSTATS is appropriate. Let's avoid WP:WABBITSEASON unless sources are found that discuss the grouping in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the official list of minutes leaders; they are grouped by total not average. I do find it strange that NBA.com would use average, while the Official Guide would use total. Either way I have to say that the subject's notability is arguable.Hoops gza (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting admin comment: I'm relisting the debate at this time to facilitate discussion beyond the possibly faulty AFD opening rationale. The question that needs to be answered at this point by the community is whether this list meets the requirements of WP:LISTN. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minutes played (whether per game or total) is certainly a notable stat and something that is often mentioned in evaluating a player's season or career. [10] Content disagreements will need resolution but the list is worth keeping. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I couldn't find sources there that weren't just an almanac-like stats listing (WP:NOTSTATS), or that talked about members of the group of season minutes leaders (WP:LISTN). Minutes leaders in a given season are discussed but nothing in relation to winners from season-to-season. LISTN recommends: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is a bear to search, especially now that Google News Archives are no longer useful to isolate reliable sources that aren't behind paywalls. But here is a 2011 piece from The New York Times discussing Monta Ellis's playing time and comparing him in that respect to Jordan, Iverson, and Chamberlain among others. [11] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The outcome of this AfD will be useful to determine if sports stats lists need to demonstrate sources that satisfy WP:LISTN to guard against WP:NOTSTATS, or if it is sufficient to have WP:VERIFIABILITY and subjective criteria that a stat is notable. For example, can new list be created for all stats at http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/, e.g. Win Shares Per 48 Minutes?—Bagumba (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Cocaine[edit]

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

Was unable to find sufficient sourcing. Most sources in article are unreliable gossip sites, YouTube, and lyrics sites. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

week Delete I don't see much proof of notability and It fails multiple criteria of WP:NMG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who made the article, I find this matter extremely odd, considering the truth that there are plenty of articles on wiki made on people who are far less notable, with even weaker sources. I scratch my head on this, but sobeit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LonerXL (talk • contribs)

@LonerXL: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG and the first (and most important) point of WP:MUSICBIO. Coverage includes but is not limited to MTV [12], DJBooth, XXL[13], Vibe[14], Rap-Up[15], BET [16], The BoomBox, International Business Times[17], Complex[18], HipHopDX [19], Vibe[20] and HipHopDX [21].STATic message me! 00:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: So are you going to add them, or is there some kind of new magic sourcing that auto-adds itself? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:TenPoundHammer:

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Thanks for the passive aggressive and sarcastic comment, I really expected more from you though. Also second Northamerica1000's response. You really should have known enough to do WP:BEFORE, before a nomination. STATic message me! 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Google search has "13,400,000 hits" also video hits 8,910,000 results on google. She is very notable in the music industry. She is noted as the taking over the female rap industry from Nicki Minaj. DavidMinhPham (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC upon a review of the sources listed above by User:STATicVapor. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Suit Gundam. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list into Gundam where notability of neither the list nor the list elements is required per WP:NNC. Most of the list is written using WP:Real world wording, but some parts do occasionally fall into in-universe perspective narrative and need a copy edit to put the wording into real world perspective. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List does not satisfy WP:LISTN, and there's little to actually merge. There are no third-party citations, the information is overly detailed, and it would overwhelm the parent article to have anything more than the intro merged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seriously a non-notable list. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: The article has not currently been deleted, as there is a problem deleting the page (all redirects and the talk page have been deleted) - see [[22]]
- A steward has been requested at m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Manual_requests. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All done. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Suit Gundam 00. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not satisfy WP:LISTN, and it is way too crufty. If someone wants to copy it over to Wikia, they might appreciate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge list into Mobile Suit Gundam 00 where notability of neither the list nor the list elements is required per WP:NNC. Most of the list is written using WP:Real world wording, but some parts do occasionally fall into in-universe perspective narrative and need a copy edit to put the wording into real world perspective. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After a month of discussion here, ultimately there's no consensus at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts at Barclays Center[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this place, especially since the more notable events are already listed at the parent article (Barclays Center). The "2014" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 23 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The future event listings can only be promotional, as they certainly cannot yet be notable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has no encyclopedic value, and it smells of promotional boasting. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not see any promotional boasting in merely listing events that took place.Zvonko (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indiscriminate applies not to article contents, but to articles. If we wrote an article on each concert as a matter of course, that would be indiscriminate. The specific items listed in an article do not have to be notable, though a reasonable number of the ones listed here will be.. There have been had several discussions here on specific instanaces of this sort of article, and I think there have been varying results-- er really need a centralzed discussion somewhere. Meanwhile, the practical thing to do is to keep them. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, indiscriminate applies; it applies to the entire content. It says: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". OK, it does not specifically mention "list of events", but IMO, a record of every event ever held is still contrary this idea/principle. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. --Bejnar (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Barclays Center#Concerts, per WP:LISTN. Although almost all of the list content is unsourced, sources could presumably be retrieved for some of the more notable events in order to support a merge. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Trevj. I'm unable to find evidence that "Barclays Center concerts" as a group/topic has been significantly discussed in reliable sources (WP:LISTN), such that an independent list is warranted. Gong show 00:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with merging is the resulting length of the page--there is enough here to make a single article cumbersome. But it would be much better to keep the material in this way rather than not keep it at all. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTPAPER or merge per Trevj. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". The problems that the 2014 section may have don't justify deleting the whole page. Diego (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I lean delete but won't make an explicit vote. However, a merge would be a dramatically bad solution as it would completely overwhelm the main article. A merge would actively degrade the main article and do our readers a disservice. Reso lute 15:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. IMO, if an AFD reaches the point of requiring a second relist, it is not likely to break away from a no-consensus state. Reso lute 00:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly an indiscriminate list in that its listing every concert that happened at a venue. That being said the topic itself isn't notable which is the main issue, there is no sources indicating concerts at the center are more notable than any other entertainment venue so fails GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clearly a discriminate list, which lists every concert at this venue. Until wikidata becomes usable such lists are the only place to store useful information in a complete way (of course, I know that some think (me too) that information about lady gaga is useless...) Staszek Lem (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple other pages of different venues on Wikipedia, such as Events at the O2 Arena for one. References are needed on the page, and cancelled events seems unnecessary, but overall it's too large to merge but should not be deleted. --Lolcakes25 (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After around a month, no consensus has emerged here at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of events held at Simon Bolivar Park[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, especially since the more notable events are already listed at the parent article (Simón Bolívar Park). The "upcoming events" section is additionally against WP:FUTURE. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 23 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as promotional fluff. This belongs on the venue's web site, not in an encyclopedia. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More zealotry from P 1 9 9 who went through the Category:Lists of events by place and arbitrarily selected a few articles from it and nominated them for deletion. None of these articles are in violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and they're definitely not in violation of WP:FUTURE. Some are not as well sourced and maintained as the others but that's not a reason to delete them.Zvonko (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. Having some notable events or names in a list does not make the list notable. Having chunks of non-notable events serves neither the informational, the navigational nor the developmental purposes of lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Purposes of lists. And just because a person or band is notable does not make their every appearance notable. Notability is not transferred. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. The more notable events are already included at Simón Bolívar Park#Concerts. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete an indiscriminate list, I have commented in detail at the centralised discussion. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is appropriate list content--it may to some extent be an extension of what we have previously done, but it is something we should be doing. It is not indiscriminate unless we include minor venues. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". WP:LISTN doesn't require that all items in the list are notable. Diego (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 638[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in studies as required. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now a suspected variable surely means that something has been written on the star...and its a K star and close. Unusual enough to warrant a page I think. I will try to look for sources later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Less than you might think; I didn't find much of substance. There were a few hits on "HD 151288", but it was mostly in combined studies. Praemonitus (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.ip[edit]

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

Fake TLD used in a single IRC server. No claim to notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivia about an individual IRC server. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individual pseudo-TLDs can be notable just like everything else per WP:GNG, but there's no evidence that ".ip" might be so. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that the official domain for this purpose is ".in-addr.arpa". Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy/move to draft upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant sharing[edit]

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

Article on "a new field of economics" first presented in a paper published in November [23]. GScholar shows that it is uncited by others. It may pan out but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON for notability, not to mention that one has to guess from email addresses that the author of the paper is also the author of our article. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is true, it's a little too soon to have this article, but I will give three arguments to keep it or at least to leave it few weeks until we get more references from other people.
1. Reviewing is currently in progress by several economists. Today, I received only positives returns and it sounds to be a foundation for Economics in digital age. Several French blogs have published papers on Merchant Sharing. But it takes time on the academic domain to publish papers (in English) that may cite the theory.
2. Merchant Sharing opens new opportunities and does not conflict with other traditional topics or news. It is some way standalone and is just linked to 'intangible good'. For educational purpose, it is important that people on Internet, with basic Math background, may understand the democratic ideas behind Merchant sharing
3. This is a very specific topic and may request an exception of Wikipedia rules. Merchant Sharing promotes an open-source, free, without paywall, P2P, secure payment system. This is really a system that advantage open-knowledge on the Net (Wikipedia model) and gives great potential incomes for artists. The more it is known and the speediest citizens get rewards from this. Pelinquin (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from some problems with... assumptions in the article text, the topic just doesn't seem to be notable. When others have discussed it in depth, then we can have an article - which reflects independent commentary. bobrayner (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or if policy/guidelines/newly-evolving practices allow for it, move to Draft:Merchant sharing ("Draft:" is a new namespace and the rules for use are still being drafted). Get it out of main encyclopedia per WP:TOOSOON but don't lose the content per 3 good arguments made by the primary author, Pelinquin, above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the draft namespace exempt from Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day? bobrayner (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft policies, guidelines, and practices are still under active development. I would expect that such things would be strongly discouraged unless there was a reasonable hope that the item would become notable. The issue here with respect to moving Merchant sharing to Draft: is not the content but whether it will be "okay" to move a page from article-space to Draft: space as a result of a deletion discussion. I think the "okay-ness" of that is still in flux. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I think that the draft namespace is a good idea; but if it does not (yet) have rules for dealing with content that clearly fails core wikipedia principles, and if that lack of rules is even used as a reason for moving such problematic content to the safe-haven of Draft, then I would oppose that outcome for this AfD. bobrayner (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure if Merchant Sharing is in common usage. However, if this article is to be kept it needs references and possibly correcting. For example, the section 'Particular cases' says Pre industrially. Only one instance of a good can be produced. But something like a book has physical and information properties. Many bibles where copied by hand, so there was more than one instance of the information contained. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mentoz (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Gasparotto[edit]

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

I mistakenly removed the PROD tag thinking of "old" Rangers. Scottish League One and Scottish League Two are not Fully Pro Leagues, so this fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY JMHamo (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he has only played at the lowest (semi-professional) level of Scottish league football. I would have considered a temporary reprieve on the basis of his selection by Canada, but apparently they are only having a training camp (Rangers FC report) and are not playing a match (ie he won't be capped internationally soon). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the PRODer, the play fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moacir Oliveira[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and evidence is lacking to show he meets WP:MANOTE as a grappler.Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Searching for his grappling results, I was unable to corroborate most of the article's claims. According to the IBJJF website, he did win an over 35 division at the 2010 Pan championships, but I couldn't find support for the claim of winning the ADCC trials, and nagafighter.com shows him competing only in only one minor 2004 tournament (which is quite different from being a 6x champion). Papaursa (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted by User:JamesBWatson under WP:G5 Mark Arsten (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Ianţu[edit]

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

Article about a television personality, of course by a single-purpose account, who doesn't appear that notable based on the sources provided:

I hope you'll forgive me for not dwelling on the pages from virgiliantu.ro, the YouTube videos or his LinkedIn profile.
A biography from his employer
Passing mention on some kind of PR page
A blog post
A contract (!)
Passing mention in some kind of blog post about an environmental event
Birthday wishes from a semi-scandal rag
Some video
Something that doesn't even mention him
Some movie theater's gossip blog
An interview with a women's tabloid
Interview with another middlebrow press organ
Interview with some guy
Article about his brother, a TV repairman
A couple more interviews

To be sure, not all the above should be summarily discarded; no one, for instance, would say Adevărul is not a serious source. However, the article as it exists appears to be a case of a lot of padding (in the form of invalid "sources") being added in order to make the subject appear more notable than he in fact is. As for the awards he's reportedly garnered, sourcing on those is weak, and we have no indication of their possible significance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—block evasion by sockpuppet of User:Beleiutz. Like his other contributions, this one is a poorly sourced, copyright-infringing puff piece. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paris bid for the 2024 Summer Olympics[edit]

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

Three articles on 2024 Summer Olympic bids got deleted successfully after several days on Afd. This article should be deleted as well. Georgia guy (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We do not even know whether they will bid yet, and if they don't this topic will never be notable. Kahastok talk 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and other AfDs (Boston (ongoing), Guadalajara, Toronto, Budapest, Saint Petersburg). Ansh6 6 6 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge or renaming discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe[edit]

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

there's no original content here, boils down to a dicdef, if that Lfdder (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the potential for expansion. For example, the history subsection could be expanded to explain why all these countries speak Romance languages. Regardless, I don't think it's current composition it unsatisfactory. Rob (talk | contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. something that is already covered/could be covered in Romance languages. History of Romance langs is covered in that article, as well as their geographic distribution. There is nothing more to say about Romance-speaking Europe other than what is said in the first sentence of the article. Nearly the whole of it is a hobbyist-made table that belongs in some kind of hobbyist-tailored compendium of various disconnected fact(oid)s about countries. — Lfdder (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Romance-speaking Europe should be deleted, then please also include Germanic-speaking Europe, Slavic World, and Celtic nations. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

repurpose, possible merge This is part of a series of articles covering romance language status in the world. It's too much to merge back into romance language; the problem I see, however, is that there is nothing about romance languages that motivates this grouping, and one could just as well hold all the same information for all languages spoken in Europe or anywhere else for that matter. Therefore I would propose changing this into something like "Lists of languages spoke in Europe" or some similar title and retaining essentially the same format. If there already is a similar series of list articles this should be merged into them. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - It is a very pertinent and encyclopedic article, and as such I don't understand this request. Would you remove Germanic-speaking Europe, Slavic World etc.? --Codrin.B (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - This is an important article regarding Europe and European languages, and as such, it shouldn't be deleted, especially when other articles regarding Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic speaking Europe remain untouched. This is pure prejudice. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the content here seems like it would fit comfortably at Romance langages so the need for a seperate article is not clear. On the other hand, the existence of parallel articles cited by Afro-Eurasian suggests that there may be a worthwhile topic here. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events held at the Arena Zagreb[edit]

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

This list is clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need a record of every event held at this arena, especially since the more notable events are already listed that the parent article (Arena Zagreb). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Do we really need a dozen separate discussions? Neonchameleon (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling them together is technically allowed, but since some may be notable and others may not, I think this is the better approach. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 29 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete all stadiums in the world hold events, it is not encyclopaedic to list every single event held. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another arbitrary and selective listing by P 1 9 9 from the Category:Lists of events by place. Granted this article is not as well sourced and maintained as some others but it can be improved.Zvonko (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is exactly the type of non-encyclopaedic list that the guidelines were drafted to avoid. --Bejnar (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, clearly an indiscriminate listing. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#List of events by place. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, INDISCRIMINATE is a narrowly worded policy consisting of four or five specific situations and is not obviously applicable to this article. James500 (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as the list is finite, relatively short and with a clear inclusion criterion, so it doesn't match in any way what INDISCRIMINATE is about. WP:INDISCRIMINATE was created to avoid the project become everything2 or DMOZ; but this is not a "list of all ISP providers in Indiana" or "list of health-related websites". Diego (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Tallinn[edit]

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

Non notable route list, Fails NOTTRAVEL & NOTDIR. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Zulu[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails WP:ATHLETE.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of hearsay, but no supported claims of notability. Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radik Iboyan[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, fails WP:NMMA, and no support for any other claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no top tier MMA fights, no significant coverage, and lacks supporting evidence for claims of sambo notability. Even with evidence, it's unclear whether he would meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RCSU Science Challenge[edit]

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

Article is about a contest that is sourced only to primary sources. I cannot find significant independent secondary coverage that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any 3rd party sources to prove notability. --Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find anything to prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming Internet Radio toolbar[edit]

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

I can't find any sources to show that this toolbar is notable, and it relies entirely on a single source. It's also been tagged as being written like an advertisement for over 2 years. Tractor Tyres (talk) 11:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to me to be something written by the company to promote it's self. A google search gave me no 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Veloz del Norte[edit]

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

non notable bus company, Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artical has no proof of nobility under wp:gng.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dominica[edit]

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

I declined this speedy on a technicality, as it was for WP:G7, which can only be used for real people and web content. This doesn't fit under either, as this is neither a real person or a webcomic-type creation. However the issue here is that this character is still non-notable. A search brought up nothing, partially because this character is from an as of yet unreleased comic book. The artwork is amazing, but the problem here is that this is still non-notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails wp:gng and has no sources to prove notability--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOOK. Article creator's COI certainly doesn't help either. --Drm310 (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bearian per G6/R3. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handsworth Primary School in Waltham Forest London[edit]

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

Not notable in any way. PROD removed by author with no attempt to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notabilty to meet WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a very ordinary primary school. Please note: the article is now at Handsworth Primary School and the title at the top of this discussion is a redirect. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union Bank of the Philippines[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the seventh-largest bank in the Philippines, a publicly-listed company, and if the nominator actually did his due diligence (where the contrary is becoming increasingly apparent), he would have noticed that the bank has significant coverage (see this, for example). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where does it say that it's the seventh largest? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publicly-listed company, significant coverage. -- The Anome (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major economic player in the Philippines and subject of plenty of coverage. Article could use some cleanup but notability is established.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other Philippines banks AFDed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per Sky Harbor. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Azevedo[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage--doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Wiedenman[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject appears non-notable, page creator stated is affiliated with the martial arts school's website that's mostly been used as a source. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage doesn't appear to be about him and he fails to meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rat Guard (for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu)[edit]

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

Non-notable variation made up by a non-notable MMA artist. No indication of notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with nothing that shows notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources and makes no claims of notability. Reads more like an ad. Papaursa (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay French[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article meets the minimum requirements of WP:NMMA, with 3 top-tier bouts (two for World Victory Road and one for Pride FC). Poison Whiskey 13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though he lost them all, he did have 3 top tier fights and that's enough to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NMMA and our benchmark for notability. Mkdw ^talk 21:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Avetisyan[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a MMA fighter of no notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no references except for a link to his MMA results at Sherdog (which lists all his IAFC bouts). He does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Gracie[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One MMA fight doesn't show notability. Almost the entire article deals with relationships and notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Article's focus is on his relatives, but that falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CodeBase (book)[edit]

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

A self-published book. No reliable sources to be found. Doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. Prod was removed for unknown reasons Bgwhite (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article asserted some notability by way of a notable person endorsing it, but I can't find anything that actually backs that claim up. Even if it was sourced, we need more than one review to show notability. This seems to be your standard, run-of-the-mill, non-notable self-published book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that the creator of the article is the book's author and that this is the second attempt at creating an article for the book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published, does not meet notability criteria specified in Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- The Anome (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, see Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, etc. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Bank[edit]

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

As per WP:COMPANY, notability not established by secondary sources. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my rationale in the Banco Filipino nomination. This bank was a publicly-listed company and was the subject of a very controversial closure fourteen years ago, which generated significant coverage in third-party sources (such as this, this, this and this) both then and now. If there are other sources, they would not be online, as Philippine newspapers rarely have archives of articles before 2003-2004 on the Internet. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re Philippine newspapers rarely have archives of articles before 2003-2004 on the Internet — Google News Archive has scans of the Philippine Daily Inquirer going back to the 90s. Search site:news.google.com "urban bank". 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not complete. Only the Inquirer, the Manila Standard and the Manila Times have online archives, and the Inquirer archive is from 2000 to 2007, not the 1990s. Anything significant about Urban Bank prior to the bankruptcy would be in the 1990s, which the archive doesn't cover (the Standard archive, which is from 1984 to 2003, doesn't have much on the bank either). Other major papers, such as the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star, don't have online archives that date back that far. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, sources don't have to be online. You can use offline sources as well as online sources or even solely offline sources. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the significant problems of the article due to the amount of WP:RS coverage which demonstrates notability. I am going through and adding some citations as I am able. That said, I understand the temptation to WP:TNT this. Sky Harbor deserves a very large WP:TROUT for creating multiple articles with dozens of kilobytes of text and zero citations in them [24][25] (not to mention those "Comparisons" sections that may very well be unsourceable WP:SYNTHESIS) and then leaving them to gather dust for eight years. Even in 2006, that was not an acceptable practice, and it would be nice if this AfD motivated him to finally step up and add at least some sources to these giant uncited walls of text, notwithstanding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why you're making this about me rather than the merits of the article. Wikipedia is inherently collaborative: people are supposed to improve the article when they see it if they see something lacking. Like what I told Raykyogrou0 in the Banco Filipino nomination, if you're so concerned about it, why not be bold and improve the article yourself? I don't own the article: Wikipedians should be capable of tending to articles they have no expertise on by actually conducting research and being hands-on. (Also, please note that I am only one person who does this work, and if you're knowledgeable about Urban Bank's failure, then please, go ahead, jump in, and work on the article, rather than criticizing me for not doing so because I decided to move on with generating other content.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, so that's how this is supposed to work? You create a poorly-sourced article and others are just supposed to come in and fix it later for you? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Times have changed since I started writing this article, back in a time when Wikipedia was more lenient with referencing standards, and well before you started editing Wikipedia. Take note that this article in its current form was written in 2006, when I was still in high school. When one starts writing other articles about a country which is underrepresented on Wikipedia (and started doing more off-wiki work in the process), it is reasonable to expect that the good will of Wikipedians will help improve the project as a whole, including this article should they come across it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidently - and don't agree with WP:TROUT for making stubs on notable banks well up to WP:IDEALSTUB. The more important point is that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The 1000s of bytes wasted in these 20 AFDs and prods could have been used by the nominator improving the articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Export and Industry Bank[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Its only references are "trivial or incidental coverage." Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep - as with other 20 plus Philippines banks, sorry but nominator does not know how to search in Google Books.

Trade Policy Review: The Philippines 1999 - Volume 67 - Page 55 "The private sector in the meantime set up the Export and Industry Bank in 1997 to service the financing needs of exporters. "

Country Finance: Philippines 2003 -- Page 94 "The Export Development Act also created the Export and Industry Bank of the Philippines (ExportBank), which offers trade-financing services-including letters of credit, collection of bills, issuance of bonds and guarantees, import advances ..."

Raykyogrou0, please add these sources to the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add them yourself. But how deep is the subject of the article covered in these sources? Or are they simply mentioned a few times? (I wouldn't know, since you didn't show me any links) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, what makes you think I didn't? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. This isn't about cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Try again, Raykyogrou0. Seriously, you're not even trying. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which of these "sources" have in-depth coverage about the subject? The first link is a hiring ad. The second is a public memo. Three links talk about annual stockholder meetings. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy Keep" or "Close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the AfD on the basis of sources located. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Burgess's Treehouse[edit]

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

No conceivable notability for this structure, an "internet sensation" DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since 1993 it has been the world's largest tree-house. --Macha Panta (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the Cite for that fact is ... where ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the name of both external links. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many sources exist about this. Google and HighBeam searches for <"Horace Burgess" treehouse> quickly yields substantial coverage in The Tennessean (reprinted in USA Today [26]); Slate [27]; New York Daily News [28]; the Daily Mail [29]; The Independent [30]; Scripps Howard News Service [31]; and lots of local coverage. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also covered in several books including Beyond Bizarre; Knack Treehouses; Tennessee Curiosities; &c. It's going straight into my list of bizarre buildings... Andrew (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try and get a hold of these books to add citations, in the meantime if you already have them, please add what you can or share on the article's talk page. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll withdraw it, if someone will add those sources. Do we have a usable picture ? DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several good photos, but they are all so large that they cannot be used as is. I've had trouble shrinking them and maintaining clarity. A discussion on the article's talk page would be a good idea because we need to make sure we find a public domain image of it that will still be clear after it is shrunk to a more appropriate size. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added most of the above sources and re-wrote most of it. Article could be expanded but I don't think there is an issue with notability at this time. If you believe so I'm confident more sources could be found, but the current ones have yet to really be used except for one or two facts from each. -- GreenC 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources found. I've known of this treehouse for years though never saw it, does get a lot of internet meme attention. -- GreenC 21:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it was notable almost a decade ago, and then later became an "internet sensation" after several online news articles were written on it. --Macha Panta (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Savings Bank[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my rationale in the UnionBank nomination. This is a publicly-listed company which has significant third-party coverage (see this and this for examples). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sky Harbor. We should get rid of the long list of directors and officers, however, and we could consider merging what's left to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company#Domestic subsidiaries and affiliates, if that seems appropriate to the Philippines-experienced editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At one point I removed it, but someone reinserted it and it has stayed ever since. I can revert it though to the original, which includes a bank history. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep - same as the other 20 Banks prodded and AFDed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, then a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Postal Savings Bank[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National postal savings bank of the Philippines, with a long history; lots of sources are evident from the usual searches. I added a couple. Observing the procedures set forth at WP:BEFORE would be helpful before taking important organizations like these to AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if articles should not take an AfD to have references added to them if it has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} for over two years. To be entirely true, you added one and not a couple. Also, how does that one reference establish the bank's notability? It doesn't exactly verify the claims in the article. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sources, not one, and they are both substantive articles about this institution. The standards and procedures you seem to be following for your recent bank-related AfDs and PRODS seem to me to be out of line with the general consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It looked like one. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could it "look like one"? - your contrib history shows only seconds between these bank Prods and Afds, no sources added. And yet when others look in Google Books and Google News they find sources, so how do you explain that "It looked like one"? if you did not check for sources yourself before nominating? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Do I really have to spell everything out for you?) It looked like one link to me when I clicked the diff from my watchlist which is why I added the {{onesource}} tag. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - Why did the nominator not add sources such as Kemmerer Postal Savings: An Historical and Critical Study to the article rather than AFDing it? Wikipedia suffers a dearth of copy-contributing editors, particularly noticable in WikiProject Philippines. It would have taken the same time/energy to check Google Books and add sources as placing an AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, how come you haven't added them? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're shifting the goalposts. We wouldn't be in this mess to begin with if you had taken the initiative to improve the article, rather than nominating it for deletion because you think otherwise. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, or. (and this is just me thinking out loud) You could have just created a properly-sourced article four years ago.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're imposing editing standards in a time when those editing standards were more lenient than they are today. The editing standards of 2010 are different from 2014, and as I mentioned in the Urban Bank nomination, I look forward to relying on the good will and community spirit of Wikipedia and individual Wikipedians to help out their fellow editors should they come across it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose editing standards were more lenient back then, (most other language wikipedias are still as lenient) but that still doesn't make this article's subject as notable as you think it was when it was created. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that consensus can change (and, in this case, it has changed), right? Policy is as much the letter as it is the spirit of the law, and you seem to be conveniently ignoring the latter for the sake of the former. (Also, as my edit history suggests, for the most part, I don't make articles willy-nilly, so yes, I stand by the fact that when I made this article back in 2010, it was, and I bet it still is, notable. You seem to be forgetting what the spirit of stubs are.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was more lenient in 2006, not 2010. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks to be more lenient than 2014, apparently. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these available sources then? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, then a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This company isn't even publicly traded. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Leisure Complex[edit]

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

Non-notable resort; only asserted notability is WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS violation. Orange Mike | Talk 04:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lakeside something seems notable enough as the annual venue of the BDO World Darts Championship if nothing else. However, someone has suggested here that the entry should be for Lakeside Country Club instead, which currently redirects to the same place. I'm not sure of the exact relationship between the two things, but one would guess that the Leisure Complex is a part of the Country Club. 86.160.223.189 (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - please read WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS: being the venue where a notable thing happens, does not make the venue notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable venue hosting notable events. Covered in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candleabracadabra. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to more commonly come up as Lakeside Country Club, Camberley; there are scads and scads of brief mentions (in addition to stand-up comedy it's also known for cabaret, as its own site states), so I believe it passes general notability, although the sad state of the online news archives is indicated by the fact I can't find a source on the fire. I've added a couple of additional references. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Lakeside Country Club. It is that venue that is notable not the controlling Group. Meets WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus is against deletion. Redirect discussion can take place elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winston McCall[edit]

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

Article is nothing more than a single sentence, created by a fan of the subject's band. The subject likely meets notability, but with such an extreme stub a redirect may be more suitable. Prior PROD was removed. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into band article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect unless a pile of content shows up - David Gerard (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Mild keep - it's just substantive enough to keep now - David Gerard (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of numerous interviews, generally as spokesperson of main band, but enough to be notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band. Nothing significant independent of his band. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Tree[edit]

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

No conceivable notability, but it passed AfC nonetheless. Of all the articles I've screened, this is perhaps the least justifiable. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might be best served by redirecting it to Martinsville,_New_Jersey#Points_of_interest, where it's already summed up fairly well as it is. I'll try to find sources, but so far it's almost solely the type that wouldn't count towards notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/redirect. I see where it's covered in three book sources, but what sort of pushes this to a weak keep for me is that this landmark has been the inspiration for an upcoming film that has received some coverage. If it does redirect, it should be with history so we can un-redirect it if/when the movie gains more coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to a previous AfD about the same topic. See also User:Valoem/The Devil's Tree. —rybec 06:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per coverage in existing article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Tree is involved with some notability. Additional citation are on my user page which I can restore if the article is kept. Valoem ^talk 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I despise articles of this type, the tree has been the subject of multiple reliable and verifiable sources that are indisputably about the tree. Alansohn (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Karado[edit]

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

This has been tagged as possibly not notable for a while. I had a look around, and while there are a couple of interviews on websites, I couldn't see anything that would pass the GNG, and there isn't evidence that there is a lot more out there. Based on the apparent status of the site, this seems unlikely to change any time soon. Bilby (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently only one third party reference in WP:RS, and that's basically taking one of the founder's word for it. Nothing else is available in English-language web searches. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Technically this article is about a website which fails at basic notability criteria for inclusion of the web contents. Just found this trivial coverage on an English newspaper site, Times of India. (Non English reference within the article is not considered in my vote because it can not be copied and translated.) Hitro talk 19:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no indications of notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Amidi[edit]

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

Reads like a resume, no indication of notability. I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But edit the article from to meet WP:NPOV. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious, you didn't explain why we should keep this article. Hitro talk 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails at WP:SIGCOV. I didn't find much info about the subject in reliable sources to evaluate the notability. The institutions or organisations, where this person has worked or is associated with, are used as references. Not an encyclopedic article in its current state. Hitro talk 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasidic childbirth customs[edit]

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

Previously WP:PRODded by me, and deprodded at User:IZAK's request that this be brought to AfD for discussion.

This article is problematic on many counts, which is unfortunate, because it is well written and uses apparently reliable sources:

Relevance: most of the article has little relevance to Hasidic Jews specifically, but applies to Haredim in general, and often to most Orthodox Jews
Accuracy: factual errors abound. Anyone with knowledge on the subject is welcome to check. Select examples:
- In the Lubavitcher tradition, women attend bridal classes (kallah) to learn the laws of family purity before marriage... Wrongly specific—this is true of all Haredim and most Orthodox.
- ...while husbands spend the first 1-2 years of marriage in full-time kollel classes, during which time their wives work to support them. Again wrongly specific—this is true of all Hasidim and many Haredim.
- The Gemara describes the settling-down of the divine presence beside a woman in childbirth using the feminine word for this presence, Shechinah, which also has special meaning for Hasidic Jews where it appears in the mystical Zohar of Kabbalah.: lofty nonsense—according to the Talmud, the shechinah visits every sickbed.
- When she is feeling strong ... the mother should recite the Birchat HaGomel, a prayer that is said in thanksgiving for deliverance after a serious illness .... This recitation should take place in the presence of a minyan (quorum) of ten men. In the past, some Rebbes have ruled that it violates a woman's modesty to recite the HaGomel in front of men, and the husband has done the recitation on her behalf, in the synagogue.: Unheard of in most (if not all) Hasidic sects.
- I can give many other examples if asked. I am not acquainted with the sources cited, except Finkelstein & Finkelstein; I assume that they are either unreliable, or that the author of the article, unacquainted with the Hasidic community, seriously misunderstood them. I thus invoke TNT
Notability of the subject: "Hasidic customs" are no doubt notable; so are Jewish childbirth customs. The intersection of the two is not.
COI: I suspect that the sole creator of this article's content (User:Plithgow) had a promotional motive in writing it; search "Hasidic childbirth customs" + Lithgow. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and per nom. I am also familiar with the subject and see many generalizations and over-specifications that apply to all Haredim, not just Hasidim. The article is also much too broad, including subjects others than childbirth (e.g. social structure, community solidarity, health and illness), and reads like a personal essay. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin roser[edit]

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Creek Band, Village of Indians[edit]

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

No context, seems like an advertisement/looks like it was copy and pasted, no indication of notability. Tal Brenev (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is somehow notable in the slightest, it belongs on Wikisource, not here. ProtossPylon 01:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It reads like a legal essay (albeit confusing), with legal code copied and pasted in. ——Josh3580_talk/hist 02:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Possible copypaste - As Josh stated above, its some legal essay. ///EuroCarGT 02:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's hard to read through all the formatting problems (because it's obviously copied and pasted from somewhere else - not written for Wikipedia), but it looks like much of it is a lengthy excerpt of an official document. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Judith Barsi. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

József Barsi[edit]

Hydrion[edit]

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

A recent invention, mentioned nowhere but on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and the manufacturer's website. (Perhaps merge, if relevant, to NAFION?) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references or evidence of notability provided. -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references and most of the info seems to be original research. WP:OR. --CyberXRef^talk 10:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jin-pole. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gin pole[edit]

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

I have proposed the deletion of article Gin pole because it is a copy of the article Jin-pole (except it does not mention the alternate spelling jin-pole). Gin pole is the more common spelling and perhaps it would be better to merge these articles keeping the more common gin pole as the title and making jin-pole a redirect to gin pole. Jim Derby (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy revert to redirect: see the article's history: Gin pole was originally a redirect to Jin-pole; 214.4.238.180 (talk · contribs) did not approve of the spelling, so copy-pasted the current revision of Jin-pole to Gin pole, and changed every instance of "jin" to "gin". Revert, and if 214.4... so wishes, they can begin a discussion to make a page-move. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one and use common sense to figure out the most common spelling and use that for the title of the surviving article, with the other spelling mentioned. But don't change the spelling in the sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

close AFD and deal with as merge/move discussion It's obvious that one or the other will be the redirect, and it's preferable to use jin-pole as the source of the move in order to preserve the edit history. With those considerations, this is the wrong venue for further discussion. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Gin pole" to a redirect. The two articles are almost identical. There is no content to be merged. "Jin-pole" seems to be the more common spelling, but both are widely used. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be precise, Gin pole is copy-paste move of jin-pole. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The proposal included the suggestion to merge. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reverting gin pole to a redirect seems good to me. Jim Derby (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry to have bothered you here if this was not an AFD. However, as long as I am bothering you what is going on with the "what links here" page in Gin pole? There seems to be a problem with many talk pages saying they link but they do not actually link. Jim Derby (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, obviously no prejudice against recreation if he gets elected.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Warburton[edit]

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

Non-notable subject - I can't find any source coverage about him specifically. FWIW the article was also largely created by the subject. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate has fair a chance of becoming a Member of Parliament in May 2015, but right now I don't see grounds for notability.Flaming Ferrari (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -non notable local politician. Atlas-maker (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to the relevant race if we have an article for it. Not able to locate significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable politician. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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