Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 November	19 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SNOW delete. TOOSOON seems the most relevant here. Will salt. Ged UK 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Formula One season[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Note that the article can't be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 because it is not sufficiently identical to the previous version. DH85868993 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Too soon, nothing in it. No news of rule changes yet, practically no driver confirmations. Wait six to eight months at least. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: — As per nomination. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON plus SALT. This article has been recreated 3 times since October 15 and will almost certainly be again before the end of 2013. SO SALT it till at least next summer....William 12:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously too soon. If these Formula One articles are really being recreated as often as it looks like, I agree that it might need to be salted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Now, there's a line at which WP:TOOSOON no longer applies, and that line can be surprisingly far back. But this hasn't crossed that yet; say, August of next year would be a good time for salting to expire, as by then many teams will have already reached deals for the 2016 season, and plans for rules and events will have been made, allowing for a proper article instead of a substub and table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:SALT and create an F1 WikiProject subpage for it. It is way too soon to be created. However, it will be recreated again. By creating a subpage for it we can update it and eventually recreate it when it reaches good enough encyclopedic value. —Gyaro –Maguus— 23:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom O'Carroll[edit]

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

The only real notability of this individual is his convictions for child pornography, unfortunately attempts to improve the article have been subject to blanket revertion without discussion so it is also very hard to improve and appears that at least one user has an agenda about owning the article though its the sheer lack of notability that makes this article require deletion not anything else ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:25, 18 November 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 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just for the record, I am not a fan of the subject of this BLP, but the WP policies take precedence. The applicable policy here would seem to be WP:ACADEMIC #1, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." The subject's work is (not surprising) controversial, but that it has been widely discussed (both positively and negatively) demonstrates that it has had substantial impact in the field. Reviews of his work (already cited on the page) include:

Mary-Kay Wilmers "'Young Love", London Review of Books, 2:23 · 4 December 1980, pp. 9–10 http://www.lrb.co.uk/v02/n23/mary-kay-wilmers/young-love
Charles Rycroft "Sensuality from the start", Times Literary Supplement, 21 November 1980
John Rae "Suffer little children", Times Educational Supplement, 17 October 1980
Maurice Yaffé "'Age of Consent", New Statesman, 7 November 1980, p.31
Eric Taylor "Too young to love?", New Society, 30 October 1980, p.246

So, although I appreciate editors' potential discomfort, such emotions do not (or ought not) override our guidelines.— James Cantor (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor discomfort? I am not aware of any of that, what do you mean by that. The afd rationale wasnt editor discomfort it was lack of notability. I am not opposed to merging any relevant material into Paedophile Information Exchange♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Infamous who passes WP:AUTHOR #3 (book reviews), and WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Indeed he passes both WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I also might be wrong here but is the nominator saying that because the editing isnt going his way he wants the article deleted rather than keeping the discussion about improvements going. Anyway this article should not be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per James Cantor. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it doesn't matter why they are notable. He's notable. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 21:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, given that the subject is a notorious paedophile with multiple convictions, the article seems to go out of its way to provide "balance" by cherry-picking material to suggest he might not be so bad after all. I think it needs some attention. Formerip (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Desmond Anthony Brooke[edit]

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

An obviously promotional article about a non-notable director of his family's trust. The sources listed in the article are about events and the activities of the trust which, while he might have been involved in those events, don't provide significant coverage of the subject himself. I can't see how this passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, it seems likely the article is an autobiography - the author has been removing sourced (but controversial) claims about members of the Brooke family. Stalwart111 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jason appears to be notable in Malaysia as seen in media sources: theborneopost.com, Gov.my, thestar.com.my, nst.com.my. Some of these are trivial mentions but not all, there is content to write an article with, and they show coverage for different things over periods of time (persistence). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A closer look reveals much of that coverage is actually centred around a single visit in September of this year - (from one of the articles) "The Brooke family, who are here in Kuching for three weeks as guests of the Sarawak government for the state’s 50th anniversary celebrations". While in town, the subject (representing his family) made a number of appearances and presentations about his grandfather and other ancestors. Hardly the stuff of WP:N, right? Stalwart111 09:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google of 'Jason Brooke Sarawak' brings up hundreds of articles on the subject, spread across 5 years and 6 or 7 visits. I cannot accept that this all centres around a single visit. I have found articles which feature Jason being interviewed by the BBC for a Radio 4 documentary on the assassination of the Governor, another one on his first visit to Sarawak, another one on digitised records and signing memorandums with the Government. It would appear as though Jason is not only widely written about in the Malaysian press, but also features in UK. It would also seem as though he is viewed by people at least in Sarawak as representing the White Rajah Dynasty.

http://www.theborneopost.com/2013/09/19/all-welcome-at-public-memorial-for-last-rajah-muda-jason-brooke/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17299633

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/09/08/James-Brook-Sarawak-ragatta.aspx

http://info-knowledge-today.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/sarawak-up-to-expectation-jason-brooke.html

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Family-reunites-fourth-King-buried-Sheepstor/story-16143788-detail/story.html#axzz2lIgGwBcP

Matthewdarce (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC) — Matthewdarce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You've offered two more recent articles about his September 2013 trip, an obviously non-RS blog and and two articles that include small quotes from the subject (but certainly not about the subject). Really, none of those do much for us with regard to WP:GNG. As famous as his relatives might have been, the subject does not inherit notability from them. The suggestion that the locals of Borneo view him as representing their former "benign dictators" would definitely need a source (needless to say, we've noticed your attempt to title the article with all of his middle names in the same manner as his Rajah relatives). And again, though its not particularly relevant to this discussion, your entire editing history has focused on promoting this individual and removing (often sourced) controversial claims from various Brooke family articles. Are you personally or professionally connected to the subject? Stalwart111 22:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you should suggest my POV as not neutral. Clearly you have displayed your own non-neutral POV with your regrettably sarcastic comment ‘benign dictators’? I have a respect for what the Brookes did in Sarawak, but my aim in contributing to the information on Sarawak is to work towards a neutral representation of facts, to avoid bias, or as with this case to prevent the deletion of pages purely on the basis that someone doesn’t look positively on this family’s legacy. I have no personal connection to the subject, nor do I have any idea whether he has seen this article.

On your other point, if Jason is not generally viewed as representing his family, I wonder why so many articles seem to have him as the interviewee? His first visit to Sarawak in 2008 seems to have garnered such interest that there was a press conference organised about him in Kuching, he was received by the Head of State and Chief Minister etc. The Blog appears to be an extract from an press article of the time (Borneo Post, Sarawak Up to Expectation: Jason Brooke, July 29, 2008) and the (Malaysian National News Agency, Bernama, Jason Brooke Traces Legacy Throughout Visit, July 29 2008)

On the James Brooke comments, you are correct that I should have given reasons at the time for the deletions. I shall go back and find the various academic sources that disagree with the sources cited for these frankly sensational assertions about James Brooke. The James Brooke article clearly focuses on the ‘sensational’ and needs a good edit, which I shall attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdarce (talk • contribs) 11:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That quote wasn't sarcasm, it was a quote - from the BBC source you cited. His is viewed as representing his family, that's the point. He just doesn't inherit notability from them. He also doesn't inherit notability from the leaders he met with on their behalf. You're yet to present sources that give him (rather than other family members) coverage. Again, quotes from him are not significant coverge of him. Stalwart111 12:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as though the printed newspaper sources of 2008 (Bernama, Borneo Post) would contain coverage of the subject himself, rather than his family, again demonstrating the interest in Jason Brooke, although of course related to his position in regard to Sarawak’s history. I could probably request scans of these but I’m not sure that is required for WP. There is no suggestion here that his Notability is inherited, but it also needs to be understood that he is Notable as a result of his position and his family’s connection with Sarawak. Wikipedia rules state that a person may be notable if there is persistent media coverage of the subject, and this subject would seem to pass on that count.Matthewdarce (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To help things along, I have just found another article specifically about the Subject, from 2008. http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2f2008%2f7%2f30%2fnation%2f21952528 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewdarce (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My first reaction was a negative one as Jason Brooke does not seem to have done much himself, except perhaps look after his ancestors' reputation. However I am prepared to be convinced that he is regarded as notable by the people of his ancestors' state. I think perhaps we need to think about this case as we would the pretender to a European throne. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I suppose I'm on the side of keeping it, but we could definitely clean up the tone of the article. I mean, the photo caption is "Jason Brooke captivates the audience at a press conference in Kuching". It reads as if the author has a crush on him. Slibbidy (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delphine Courtney[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. No independent reliable sources establish that the character is notable separate from the fiction in which it appears. Violates WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:FICT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: D. BOZ (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of what independent reliable sources are you suggesting the subject passes notability guidelines. While there is no sourced information to merge which makes merger inappropriate, surely the target would be List of Marvel Comics characters: C? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if "Courtney" is supposed to be a surname, but if it is then that would be an acceptable merge target. BOZ (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: C. I can't find significant coverage of this character in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, Courtney is the character's last name, and thus C would be the correct place to merge. I could be wrong, though, as I'm not familiar with this character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Courtney is a surname. The character is addressed as "Ms. Courtney" upon first appearance. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Excellent arguments to keep, but no policy arguments to delete this well-hashed-out story. May be re-named per discussions. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath[edit]

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

I can think of no valid reason that a particular story in a particular book should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel. As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, nor does it conform to WP:BKD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there is no reason why a character within a particular book can't have its own article (see for example the other contents of Category:Books of Kings), there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that cover this event or the character of the widow of Zarephath with the scholarly detachment expected for articles about characters from holy texts (for believers) or collections of mythology (for us heathens). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is loads and loads of coverage. E.g.

Stephanie Wyatt, "Jezebel, Elijah, and the widow of Zarephath: a ménage à trois that estranges the holy and makes the holy the strange," JSOT 36 (2012)
Jopie Siebert-Hommes, "The widow of Zarephath and the great woman of Shunem : a comparative analysis of two stories," in On reading prophetic texts : gender-specific and related studies in memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (1996)
Magnus Ottosson, "The Prophet Elijah's visit to Zarephath," in In the shelter of Elyon : essays on ancient Palestinian life and literature in honor of G W Ahlström (1984)

St Anselm (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jerry Pepsi, the second source in the article Judaism in Late Antiquity actually comes up first on Google Books "widow" "zarephath" "rabbi" among 379 sources, why would you say that Jacob Neusner is not a scholarly source? Do you wish to revise your !vote on the basis of these sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see a problem with the nomination - the Bible is not quite on the same level as the Harry Potter novels. Per long-standing wikipedia practice, these sort of characters and events are presumed to be notable. This is because of the coverage they receive - in commentaries, in journal articles, and of course in art. The commons link has a dozen artworks. In fact, I think there should also be an article on the widow herself, since Jesus mentions her in Luke 4:26. St Anselm (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some references that establish the notability of the character. Certainly Jesus is a heck of a shout out but The Bible is not an independent reliable source for its own content. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. St Anselm (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing how that point means this should have it's own standing article. While I'm certain one could find a myriad of people talking about almost every verse in the bible, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every verse. I could also point to WP:IINFO to back up that argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Invalid deletion criterion: this particular story in this particular book is notable. Numerous sources exist, as a search will show, and as StAnselm noted. The notability means that this is one of the WP:BKD exceptions (and even if it wasn't, BKD is not a deletion criterion). -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the nominator's reasons make no sense. Number one, the Bible is not just "any" book and it would be absurd that every theme and article that comes out of the Bible should be "crunched" into any one article about the Bible as a "book" and the Bible has many books, all of which have articles on WP. Number two, this article is a stub and can be developed over time, but that being so it is an episode crucial to two world religions Judaism and Christianity (and it's not about "books"). Number three, the nominator seems to be taunting and degrading religion on WP, just see how he dabs "[[Book of Kings|particular book]]" above when all you see is "particular book" comparing it to Harry Potter, while it's in fact an episode in the Books of Kings that has been been around for well over 2,000 years, important not just in terms of religion and theology but also historically and culturally (and he seems to just be picking on it because it happens to have the name "Books..") -- Imagine if archaeologists had access to a book that was written much longer than 2,000 years ago describing events from about 3,000 years ago -- it would be studied in great detail and ALL it's episodes would be micro-analyzed and held in the highest regard. That is NOT like any other book and certainly NOT like Harry Potter pop pulp fiction. IZAK (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't assign nefarious intent to the nominator with accusations of "taunting and degrading religion". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jerry Pepsi and welcome to WP. Let's take a closer look at the nominator's language in his own words: "I can think of no valid reason" -- Really? "that a particular story in a particular book" -- he hides/downplays the fact that it's the Bible's Book of Kings not some latter-day book. "should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel" -- comparing a book, ANY BOOK, from the Bible to Harry Potter is disrespectful and would be regarded as offensive and even sacrilegious by editors who are serious Judaic or Christian editors; just as no one would say or imply for example that a scientific subject is like a section in a Mickey Mouse cartoon. "As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia," -- How so? The tone is dismissive. "nor does it conform to WP:BKD" -- incorrectly citing "policies" to suit oneself in an AfD, wasting everybody's time is a violation of WP:LAWYERING at best and of WP:DONOTDISRUPT at worst. Then again, maybe the nominator needs to be reminded of WP:SPIDERMAN and leave well-enough alone. Why go out of your way to pick on not one but two important episodes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem) and tie things up here? IZAK (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you have any idea how many different works have been published with substantial coverage of this specific incident? Even aside from the works mentioned above by St Anselm, there are tons of more general commentaries that provide coverage; try Calvin's Commentaries, or the Keil-Delitzsch Commentaries, or Matthew Henry — and those are just the Protestants! I don't know the Catholic or Orthodox scholarship, but presumably they exist, and you'll get tons of discussion in the Talmud as well as (probably) plenty of other Jewish scholarship. Unlike Harry Potter, the Bible has indeed been micro-analyzed in all its episodes, and even if you have no interest in believing its teachings and see the original text as nothing particularly distinctive, you need to understand that the amount of biblical scholarship makes it unique from an encyclopedic perspective. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason given by nominator as to why this Category:Hebrew Bible events stub with 58,500 Google Book references should be merged when the New Testament articles in Category:Resurrection are considered notable for standalone, not lumped into Gospel of Luke etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's definitely potential for expansion here. I'm fairly certain that over the past few millennia some reliable sources have covered this... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very silly nom - snow close please. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a much discussed subject. However, I wonder whether it might be better to rename and repurpose as Widow of Zarephath, rather than just concentrate on this one incident. That is currently a redirect to the article under discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem[edit]

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

I can think of no valid reason that a particular story in a particular book should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel. As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, nor does it conform to WP:BKD. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 21:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Woman of Shunem - while there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are specifically about the raising, there are sources about the Woman of Shunem. Target is currently a redirect to this article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Pepsi - that is a WP:RM Woman of Shunem redirects here anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus emerges that the article should be moved that is a valid AFD outcome. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway you're saying Keep, but rename. FWIW The problem is that such a rename would go against normal titling practice for incidents (see WP:RM archive for [Name] to [Death of Name] moves). I discussed the title with UserSt.Anselm when working on the stub, in fact it may be his title, I can't remember. But we normally use RM for moves not AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There could easily be an article on the woman as well, but as a resurrection story, this incident has its own notability. The Bible is not quite at the same level as Harry Potter as far as coverage in secondary sources goes. St Anselm (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the article still requires independent secondary sources, Bible or no Bible. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure:

Gershon Hepner, "Three's a crowd in Shunem: Elisha's misconduct with the Shunamite reflects a polemic against prophetism," ZAW 122 (2010)
Yairah Amit, "A prophet tested: Elisha, the great woman of Shunem, and the story's double message," Biblical Interpretation 11 (2003)
Jopie Siebert-Hommes, "The widow of Zarephath and the great woman of Shunem : a comparative analysis of two stories," in On reading prophetic texts : gender-specific and related studies in memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes (1996)
Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, "The great woman of Shunem and the man of God : a dual interpretation of 2 Kings 4:8-37," in Feminist companion to Samuel and Kings (1994)

St Anselm (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still argue that the subject would be better served by having the article be about the character in general rather than the specific action. Certainly the raising would be a prominent section within the article itself but a broader focus that included all aspects of the character would better serve readers interested in the subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About which "character in general"? The woman? The son? Elisha? -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 07:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing how that point means this should have it's own standing article. While I'm certain one could find a myriad of people talking about almost every verse in the bible, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every verse. I could also point to WP:IINFO to back up that argument. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on every individual verse likely would fragment the information too much (although there are articles about some but not all verses). That potential fracture doesn't have any particular bearing on whether this individual verse or its subject matter (or the broader subject matter of the character herself) passes notability guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Invalid deletion criterion: this particular story in this particular book is notable. Numerous sources exist, as a search will show, and as StAnselm noted. The notability means that this is one of the WP:BKD exceptions (and even if it wasn't, BKD is not a deletion criterion). -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ....there are only 6 or 7 resurrections in the Bible which means even the least famous receives 1,000s of Google Book hits, and that in the Bible raising someone from the dead is a notable standalone incident. But I'm wondering more about what prompted this editor's AfD? 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)\
Keep because the nominator's reasons make no sense. Number one, the Bible is not just "any" book and it would be absurd that every theme and article that comes out of the Bible should be "crunched" into any one article about the Bible as a "book" and the Bible has many books, all of which have articles on WP. Number two, this article is a stub and can be developed over time, but that being so it is an episode crucial to two world religions Judaism and Christianity (and it's not about "books"). Number three, the nominator seems to be taunting and degrading religion on WP, just see how he dabs "[[Book of Kings|particular book]]" above when all you see is "particular book" comparing it to Harry Potter, while it's in fact an episode in the Books of Kings that has been been around for well over 2,000 years, important not just in terms of religion and theology but also historically and culturally (and he seems to just be picking on it because it happens to have the name "Books..") -- Imagine if archaeologists had access to a book that was written much longer than 2,000 years ago describing events from about 3,000 years ago -- it would be studied in great detail and ALL it's episodes would be micro-analyzed and held in the highest regard. That is NOT like any other book and certainly NOT like Harry Potter pop pulp fiction. IZAK (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain WP:CIVIL and don't assign nefarious intent to the nominator with accusations of "taunting and degrading religion". Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Jerry Pepsi and welcome to WP. Let's take a closer look at the nominator's language in his own words: "I can think of no valid reason" -- Really? "that a particular story in a particular book" -- he hides/downplays the fact that it's the Bible's Book of Kings not some latter-day book. "should have it's own article, much like there wouldn't be an article on a particular event in a Harry Potter novel" -- comparing a book, ANY BOOK, from the Bible to Harry Potter is disrespectful and would be regarded as offensive and even sacrilegious by editors who are serious Judaic or Christian editors; just as no one would say or imply for example that a scientific subject is like a section in a Mickey Mouse cartoon. "As such this article adds nothing to the encyclopedia," -- How so? The tone is dismissive. "nor does it conform to WP:BKD" -- incorrectly citing "policies" to suit oneself in an AfD, wasting everybody's time is a violation of WP:LAWYERING at best and of WP:DONOTDISRUPT at worst. Then again, maybe the nominator needs to be reminded of WP:SPIDERMAN and leave well-enough alone. Why go out of your way to pick on not one but two important episodes (see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath) and tie things up here? IZAK (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do you have any idea how many different works have been published with substantial coverage of this specific incident? Even aside from the works mentioned above by St Anselm, there are tons of more general commentaries that provide coverage; try Calvin's Commentaries, or the Keil-Delitzsch Commentaries, or Matthew Henry — and those are just the Protestants! I don't know the Catholic or Orthodox scholarship, but presumably they exist, and you'll get tons of discussion in the Talmud as well as (probably) plenty of other Jewish scholarship. Unlike Harry Potter, the Bible has indeed been micro-analyzed in all its episodes, and even if you have no interest in believing its teachings and see the original text as nothing particularly distinctive, you need to understand that the amount of biblical scholarship makes it unique from an encyclopedic perspective. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the related Afd, there's definitely potential for expansion here. I'm fairly certain that over the past few millennia some reliable sources have covered this... Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 15:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cullen[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this person exists. As far as I can tell, this article is a hoax by user ShawshankR5, who created this article, essentially as it stands now, in June 2011. (And that was the only edit this user has ever made.) Yaron K. (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparent hoax. Good find. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also couldn't find anything about him (and there would be something for a television news presenter). Thincat (talk) 09:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well spotted. Dalliance (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly a hoax, with an author who seems to have developed writer's block halfway through creating this article. Guess we'll never know what programme he guested on in 1992. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G3 and WP:SNOW. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by User:LumCel sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Smith (author)[edit]

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

This is a thinly-veiled promotional article of a non-notable person ElKevbo (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "thinly-veiled promotional article". Where is the promotion? There is not one external link to my site or any online property that I own. The links are all to third parties which are not controlled by me. Also you mentioned that I was "non-notable person". What's the definition? Wikipedia is filled with "non notable" people and you don't need to be a famous musicians or movie star to have a wikipedia page.It meets every criteria for WP:GACR KEEP this page.- Jimmy Smith
Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that discuss this gentleman in such a way as to establish his notability under any guideline. The sources on the article range from interviews on self-published blogs (not reliable) to quotes from the subject on TV shows like Mike and Molly (not substantively about the person). Not notable as an author or fitness professional. See WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ATHLETE as examples of relevant guidelines. The presence of other possibly non-notable people is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all of the references are either press releases from the subject or blog entries, some of them writte by the subject himself, or passing mentions that don't have any substance. Agree with the post above that the subject doesn't meet the requirements of GNG, Author or Athlete for notability. Banks Irk (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart111 22:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not the authors vault that self-published blogs interviewed him. While he might not be a athlete or author that doesn't mean that he shouldn't have a page. His media links without his quotes prove that he is a worthwhile business professional-Carry Ledg

There is no question of "fault". Wikipedia guidelines for articles require that there be independent reliable third-party sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. "Reliable" means that there needs to be evidence of editorial control and oversight. Self-published blogs do not meet that standard and cannot be considered for purposes of establishing notability. However "worthwhile" Mr. Smith may be is not relevant to whether or not he meets the project's guidelines for notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No arguments have been made for the preservation of this article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Panayoti Karousos[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google returns no third-party sources, and the Google books search where he is most prominently mentioned is a list here on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kalil Wilson[edit]

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

I think this is a fairly minor operatic singer with a single album. Most, i.e. 2/3rds of the sources are damaged and the ones that are available seems to point to contests or gigs. I think the lad's articles fails WP:MUSIC. scope_creep talk 16:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no inclination about the fate of this article as I did not write it: I did write Easy to Love and my creation of that was merely to get a track listing off this page. However, Checklinks chucks up three broken URLs only, which I will fix in my own time, and (in my opinion) if this much can be written about it then he probably passes WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 19:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The broken links have been removed or updated. Credit in popular, jazz, and classical genres is provided. Information regarding production, affiliation, major venues and performances has been supplied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgwilsonw (talk • contribs) 00:17, 29 October 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) 01:10, 4 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 11 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he's notable. He won a Metropolitan Opera regional contest.[1] He is often named as the headliner of concerts. [2] --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Żmien L-Ispanjoli[edit]

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

Unreferenced substub; as written clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a couple of references as well as I can at the moment. I may have spare time later today to do more. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 13:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The review in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies seems like a reliable source, if we could find one or two more it would be quite satisfactory. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 3 November 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) 01:17, 11 November 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, Wifione ^Message 17:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, website (not even launched yet) with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sneekt[edit]

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

Google doesn't turn up anything resembling a reliable source which discusses the subject. [3] Seems to fail WP:WEB. Jinkinson talk to me 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tripp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article mostly consists of plot summaries. Source search only brought up fleeting mentions in articles about the show. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip characters. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 2 November 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) 00:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 11 November 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, Wifione ^Message 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - the sourced information about the character's genesis belongs in the character list; the excessive plot details don't belong anywhere. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic's Library[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:OR and is failing WP:GNG. The max. 6500 hits (including doubles) on Google are not a show of notability. The Banner talk 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at these other libraries on Wikipedia to study the formatting before expanding this page, are you suggesting they all be deleted?

If not, please clarify, thanks. Joolzzt (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every article is judged on its own merits, so it is not effective to compare at all. The Banner talk 23:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is simply a List of Books similar to many other lists found across WP. The WP:OR argument will need to apply to all similar lists. Is this the intent? General notability may be helped by the recent addition of the well cited paragraph following the lede. Frederick Green (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 101.119.14.128 (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 101.119.14.136 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN. This seems to be a list of works arbitrarily selected by the article author. While the individual works are notable, this specific list is not. References are cited in the article, but they do not relate to this specific collection of works. -- 101.119.14.99 (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SALAT. Remove Videos and Podcasts section and rename List of books about skepticism or List of publications important to skepticism or other suitable "List of..." title. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A rename to List of publications important to skepticism would require sources showing the works are "important," so I'm not sure that works. One option would be to split this list into other, less arbitrary lists, such as List of books opposing Creationism. As a general rule, however, works should not be on the list unless there are articles about those works. -- 101.119.14.99 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This utterly random list combines fiction, autobiography, straight (non-sceptical) science and all kinds of other things. It reads like a "my favourite books" list. -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of important publications in skepticism. This is standard naming see Category:Bibliographies by subject in particular the science, and philosophy bibs. There is precedent. Personally I don't think Wikipedia handles big-topic bibliographies well, but if editors want to work on it they should be allowed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says that, for example, the novel Contact is an "important publication in skepticism"? Or the autobiographical Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!? Surely we would need sources to support the suggestion of importance? -- 101.119.14.128 (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes everything added to Wikipedia must comply with WP:NOTE. Beyond that, editors have control over what to include or exclude. "Important" is another way of saying "notable" and is superfluous since by definition everything on Wikipedia is already "important/notable". It's up to editors to hash out which notable items should be included in the list. For example 2000 is not a list of everything that happened in 2000, or even a list of everything notable that happened, just those items curated by Wikipedia editors. I think you are correct that certain books could be removed for being non-notable titles, although the path to notability is not simply having a blue link article, things can be notable and not have an article which is a higher standard of notability than inclusion within a separate article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously everything on the list should be notable. We have other lists of books, like List of popular science books on evolution. But a list of important books, like List of important publications in chemistry, also requires evidence of particular importance. So Contact is a notable novel, but not necessarily important to Scepticism. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're both wrong about NOTE. It applies to article creation, not content. Article content must be from RS. RS is not the same as NOTE. Obviously it must be relevant to the topic, IOW on-topic. If a book somehow made it to the list and it's not really relevant, then it should be removed, with an edit summary explaining why. For example, some skeptics have written books on other topics. Those other books wouldn't belong on this list. By deleting that one book, with an edit summary, skeptics who edit the article can determine if that judgment call is correct. Let's take an example. Paul Offit has written a book(s) on vaccination. A non-skeptic might say that's irrelevant to the list, but to any skeptic, it's very relevant, since one of the interests of many skeptics is opposition to the work of anti-vaccinationists, a major meme in alternative medicine, which is also another major topic of relevance to skeptics. So....discuss on the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think too broad a definition of "sceptic" is being used here (and the inclusion of novels in the list certainly suggests that no suitably specific selection criterion is being applied). WP:SALAT notes "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." One feasible alternative is to split this list into sublists by topic, and assess those independently. -- 101.119.14.136 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting into topic areas is a good idea, and has already been done. Note that the whole table is sortable by topic area. Of course we could split it further into separate sections with their own sortable tables. That way we'd have several sections with tables, instead of one big table. Would that be preferable? What advantages or disadvantages would such an approach give us?

The category areas explicitly denote the relevance of each entry, and each topic area is notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a lot of the books cover multiple areas of skepticism, so I have a general category of 'scientific skepticism' for those. There would be a need for a general page like this even if some books are split onto other pages.Joolzzt (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's also a legitimate general category. There is no need to split this list into multiple pages. That would be absurd. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename List of books about skepticism or similar title. This is a valuable collections of works. Is it perfect? Probably not. It's under development. Rather than blanket delete, fix obvious faults. The huge deletions by IP 101 seem to be closer to vandalism based on personal POV, rather than attempts to improve through discussion and collaboration. Use the talk page and seek to improve rather than break down. Individual entries need not be notable. Notability only applies to article creation, and skepticism is a very notable subject. What is determinative here is if the content is useful to skeptics. Let those uninterested in skepticism stick to fixing formats, spellings, and punctuation. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, please. A list like this should be listing books with articles (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, especially WP:CSC). The edits in question also added many wikilinks, and corrected errors in article titles. -- 101.119.15.128 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with making such huge deletions. There can be good edits happening at the same time, but it's extremely difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and it's much easier to return to the status quo. So make those edits small, with edit summaries, and they may well stick because they are aimed at building and improving, not destroying. As long as this AfD is ongoing, do not blank or otherwise deface the article. Small deletions that are justified by good edit summaries are another matter. Just be constructive. All editors should seek to make this list eligible for inclusion, not sabotage it so it can be deleted. That would be bad faith.

I'm well aware that some types of lists, just to be able to manage them and prevent frivolous, promotional, and vandalistic additions, require (an unofficial ad hoc decision by the local editors) that additions be notable enough for their own article, or be accompanied by RS demonstrating their relevance. In this case, the author and title may not obviously demonstrate relevance, so an accompanying blue link about the topic of relevance would be good. If the content is of relevance to alternative medicine, that blue link is what demonstrates why the book is in the list. It would not be necessary for the book or author to have their own blue link. Such a requirement would empty most articles if we had such a requirement, but we don't. This article is in development, and the addition of RS would certainly improve it, so help with that work. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "an unofficial ad hoc decision by the local editors," it's part of the MoS. This list is clearly covered by WP:CSC #1 (#2 and #3 don't apply), and WP:CSC #1 says: Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment. If this list is to be kept, it should meet (at least) that guideline. In addition, WP:IINFO requires clear inclusion criteria. -- 101.119.15.40 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#2 does apply, and the very existence of those several possibilities (from notable to not notable) indicates that we're pretty flexible and not nearly as rigid as you propose. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just nonsense; WP:CSC #2 does not apply because many books on the list are notable enough to have articles. Case #2 is used for things like lists of minor characters in a movie, which would not be notable enough for an article on their own. I suggest that you read WP:CSC again; it says: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR and WP:Edit warring warnings to IP 101. Since you have a dynamic IP address (four so far) which keeps changing, I'm leaving this warning here where you will be certain to see it. You have, over the objections of others, repeatedly deleted huge amounts of material from the article. You are already at 3RR and will be blocked if you continue. When your edits are controversial, you should not attempt to force your will. That's edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep reverting the addition of wikilinks to book articles, and the corrections to misspelled book titles. That's vandalism. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously vandalism was not intended, and real improvements are welcomed. It likely happened when one of your mass deletions was undone. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Green Cardamom (who is also right about the difficulties of maintaining such large lists). There are plenty of precedents at Lists of Books and related pages, eg the lists listed at Lists of important publications in science. Inclusion criteria, etc are a separate subject to whether we should keep this article. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I think you meant Lists of books. I would have no problems if this article was split up into lists on specific subjects in line with that precedent. -- 101.119.15.42 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. And someday maybe the list can be split up, but that again is no reason for deletion. Discuss the future of this article after a decision is made about deletion. Dougweller (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to splitting the contents into separate sections, while keeping it as one list, but doesn't the current categorization serve that purpose well? That it's sortable across categories is really nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of books about skepticism. Then copy edit the lead accordingly. From here, the list would pass WP:LISTPURP per the many blue links in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PLEASE don't keep editing the page until a decision is reached. I am happy to edit the page in accordance with the final decision, it is inappropriate to keep changing the page while a decision is pending. To 101.119.14.128 - the book list is not intended to contain any fiction of straight science books. I will remove 'Contact', if you tell me of any others then I will remove them. The list is for books specifically related to skepticism, which may include biographies of famous skeptics but not fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joolzzt (talk • contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, policy encourages editors to edit articles while they are at AfD. In particular, there are many books that need wikilinks (several wikilinks were added but later removed). There seems to be a WP:OWN issue here. -- 101.119.15.204 (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split according to the column classifying works as on (or possibly against) Creationism, Religious skepticism, Young Skepticism, alternative medicine, etc. A bibliographic article is potentially encyclopaedic, but this one is trying to do too much at once. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fairly clear this list is valid. However, a rename or move is legitimate. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:CactusWriter per CSD A10, "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Puguntha Veedu." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puguntha Veedu (Tv Serial)[edit]

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

The page have duplicate page named Puguntha Veedu on wikipedia Ujjwal234goel (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - this AFD is malformed as the article is tagged for speedy deletion, not AFD. This should be closed and, should the speedy request be declined, procedurally re-nominated. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fortresses (Mazinger)[edit]

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

Article is about a element in a series of fictional works without significant coverage to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivia DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Mazinger. Nothing but plot details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterborough ditch murders[edit]

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

Tragic but WP:NOTNEWS. ...William 16:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions....William 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions....William 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a case of serial killing involving three murders and two attempted murders would normally be notable anyway, but where the alleged serial killer is a woman this is pretty unusual. The case is still ongoing and there could be more comes out. PatGallacher (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that NOTNEWS applies in this case, as the multiple murders make this case notable and there has been significant coverage. The fact that the case is currently in the news (due to the guilty plea) doesn't diminish the notability. TigerShark (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serial killers are notable. The fact that this involves woman stabbing three men to death and attempting to kill another two, makes this more notable. Women killers typically poison people whom they know, indoors. This case is as unusual as that of Aileen Wuornos, who shot her victims dead. This case would have much more coverage were it not for the fact that her co-defendants have pleaded not guilty and are therefore awaiting trial. This means that the media are limited in what they can say about the case. Jim Michael (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that the deaths are a serial killing, as opposed to a mass or spree killing.[4][5] The three victims all lived in the same house, and died within 1-10 days of each other.Martin451 23:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these murders cannot be categorised as serial, they are still notable enough to justify the article, which needs expanding. Jim Michael (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what the others said --New Thought (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A spree killer is notable, a female one even more so. This meets WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The timing of its creation isn't ideal as there's still ongoing legal stuff, but it can always be expanded when that concludes and we know the facts. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already easily meets WP:GNG with undoubtedly more coverage to come when she is sentenced. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with arguments made above. Finnegas (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK fuel economy ratings[edit]

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages per WP:NOTCATALOG:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate, per WP:VAGUEWAVE? postdlf (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles are just detailed comparisons of fuel economy statistics for cars available on the UK market circa mid-2008 (I think, I haven't verified the date), apparently just a dump from the source (which is under the Open Government License so its not a copy vio). This is way to too detailed for a general-purpose encyclopaedia. At least the A-D article was prodded in October 2007 by Chryslerforever1988 with the rationale "WP:NOT#STATS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE". The prod tag was removed 9-days later without any changes having been made. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. While an individual vehicle's fuel standards are notable within the article on that vehicle, in this form it's neither particularly legible, nor does it have much encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big Book (thought experiment)[edit]

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. Wittgenstein is really, really well-studied, which includes this thought experiment. Frankly, I'd rather we mention it in his article and redirect there instead of spinning this one minor snippet of his philosophy out into its own article, but if others are passionate about defending its independence, I won't stand in there way. In any case, since the primary concern here is that there's nothing to demonstrate the notability of this concept, here are a couple sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klemke, E. D. (1975). "Wittgenstein's lecture on Ethics". The Journal of Value Inquiry. 9 (2): 118–127.
Wolcher, L. E. (1998). "A meditation on Wittgenstein's Lecture on ethics". Law and Critique. 9 (1): 3–35.

Keep. I added some references, to address some concerns [6]. I also moved the nice material Squeamish just mentioned into a further reading section. The weird thing is that there is no article yet on Wittgenstein's ethical theories, which if there were, I would just say merge this into that. Right now this article is pretty much the only material on Wittgenstein's ethics in this encyclopedia; hopefully that will change. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable concept, sufficiently supported by references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 November 2013‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Talonz[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. The article presents what I suspect to be a made-up quotation, and the cited sources mention her only in passing (if at all), except for one that looks self-published. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means. Minor actress for minor films with no in-depth coverage or even that many significant and reputable sources. A Google News search provided some results, with Oakland Tribune being the most reliable. Basically, it looks she's done some work as a screaming girl in horror movies and as a sex symbol but nothing significant. Google News searches with the films provided nothing else. No prejudice towards a future article if she becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SisterTwister sums up the issues at hand, and it's also worth noting that the article appears to have been written by the subject (whose only contributions were self-promotion). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Chambers[edit]

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

Notability not established. No coverage in independent media, no significant featured roles. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no possible target for a redirect. Multiple Google News searches only provided the following links 1 (press release for his book) and 2 (brief mention of his book). Basically, he's another minor actor with the usual TV appearances. It even seems that his book is not notable and looking at one user generated review (I know, not reliable for Wikipedia but still relevant to the book), the book is more targeted toward extras new to the industry. Nothing to add or improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BN Vocational School[edit]

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

Delete, fails WP:CORP Two editors, Myself and an administrator believes this should have been an A7 csd because it has not asserted notability at all but due to the minutia of policy wankery we find ourselves at AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and the fact that not many Chinese secondary schools get mentioned in the New York Times[7]. Secondary schools do not need to claim notability. Also likely to be sources under its Chinese name. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All high schools are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a high school. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might not be a high school by some standards - an article in The Hindu says "the students must finish middle school and then pass a special entrance examination," followed by a "two-year training period, which includes an internship". [8]. But I think it passes the general notability guideline by virtue of non-trivial coverage in the NYT, the Hindu, and China Daily [9]. Novickas (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - already passes WP:ORG even without a search for sources in Chinese. Getting such international coverage, also, is unusual and significant for a school of this type. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Mevoli[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT, fails notability for athletes if just an American-only recordholder in a very minor sport with less than 50 participants Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. American record holder and a placegetter at a world championship. Have added details to article.Capitalistroadster (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Have expanded article. Gildir (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep V. Joe (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work folks on expanding my humble stub and saving me the trouble. I didn't have time this morning to add that Mevoli was already a record holding athlete, all but ensuring someone would send it off to AFD without, as it were, diving into the subject matter. My bad. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evenrød (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is very useful. Please, keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.231.41.175 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable individual. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. record holder, and notable for being the first one to die in an international freediving competition - a sad milestone for the sport. Reluck 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GacouLuc (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep. Foregoing reasons. New York Times has a big video on him. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presley Hutchens[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced for almost 5 years. No significant independent coverage found. Given the low number of members for the church as a whole, being a Bishop doesn't seem likely to be enough in itself to make someone notable. Michig (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GHITS of 20+ pages but most are announcements or trivial mentions, the most reliable secondary source I could find was nola.com with trivial mentions.[10][11] Nothing in Google Books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Citizen Program[edit]

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

A CSD A7 was declined but I fail to see how the article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, or passes WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tagged for CSD because it has NO CLAIM to significance. I believe it fails ORG. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I feel very sorry for Dmpinto2002 (talk · contribs) who has submitted more than an hundred stubs like this, only to have them all deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOPEC MMI[edit]

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

Reason; the subject already exists. LOPEC MMI (talk) 08:23, 18 November 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 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas Box office of Tamil films[edit]

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

No content whatsoever. Plus even if it may have had content, it is best to merge the article with List of highest-grossing Kollywood films. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Overseas" box office is not a notable concept anyway, since box office is usually tallied from a global or national perspective which List of highest-grossing Indian films worldwide can adequately cover; alternatively establish an article just covering Kollywood box office i.e. List of highest-grossing Kollywood films. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3D Rad[edit]

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

This article is not about a notable topic, has no significant content to it, and is in very bad shape. It also is designed (but no longer as much worded) like an advertisement. MopSeeker (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. A search did not reveal any significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hasland#Schools. SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasland Junior School[edit]

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

A somewhat older article that survived a previous AfD in 2007 (withdrawn bhy nominator). It was kept at a further AfD in the same year, but it appears that the consensus was not based on notability guidelines. It has been significantly expanded in good faith by many contributors and is now long but I fail to see how it meets WP:ORG. I invite discussion before redirecting as per usual practice for non notable schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hasland#Schools - nothing particularly notable about the school. Refs mainly official statistical sources. Press refs concern opening of new school.the single notable alumnus could be merged into locality articled as a passing reference to a former pupil. Atlas-maker (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Hasland#Schools. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Hasland#Schools. Fails WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shōwa era (daikaiju eiga)[edit]

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

This has no sources and may possibly be original research. TTN (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's concerns, and can't find any sources that would back this myself. Heisei era (daikaiju eiga) and Mireniamu era (daikaiju eiga) also have the same problem. TTN, do you think those two should be added to this deletion nomination? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have seen the concept dicussed in at least five different books on Godzilla and kaiju, and it is the general terminology for this series. The concept seems generally notable for me in the context of Godzilla-movies, and by extension the kaiju-genre as such. Godzilla_(franchise) actually has this already covered better than this article. Most likely influenced by Godzilla the Gamera franchise uses this as well (there are DVD sets for Showa and Heisei Gamera movies, named as such), and the eras are used on Wikipedia to distinguish between the different eras of the Gamera franchise(Template:Gamera) with only the articles in question as a reference. I would advise to rework the articles into something more usable. Right now they are an unsourced mess, but I think there is at least some notability there. Alternatively one could merge the relevant information into the article on Kaiju. 188.95.26.178 (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)— 188.95.26.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete Even to the degree that these terms can be documented (and if they cannot be documented as transliterated terms in English texts, there's no point to having them in an English Wikipedia), I'm not seeing how they wouldn't just be sections within a timeline of Godzilla movies. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the reason is actually simple: the terms are specific concepts that are used in English texts to describe a certain expression of a genre (the Kaiju genre). In English texts I have so far only noticed them being used to describe the era in monster movies, but they are used for this exact purpose. The reason why it wouldn't be sections within a timeline of Godzilla movies is because works focussing on the Gamera movies use them as well. Gamera was created by a different company. 31.183.114.163 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)— 31.183.114.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - So put it in one of the other articles mentioned, assuming that it isn't just some fan's made-up thing. Mangoe (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of any reliable sources, this is simply unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN, Mangoe, and DAJF: I've nominated the other two for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisei era (daikaiju eiga) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mireniamu era (daikaiju eiga). Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BKV Advertising[edit]

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

Highly promotional, with no real sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the coverage referenced in the article, which is the local coverage one would expect of any such firm, plus various routine announcements via searches, I did find a Design Week article (now included as a reference). It frames a discussion topic with this firm's material, which is possibly not enough to be about the firm itself though. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3 of the 4 Google News searches I performed, 1, 2 and 3, all provided PR pieces, republished PR or bizjournals.com (latter tends not to be the best source sometimes). No major or in-depth coverage. I will say that some links simply say BKV so they may be referring to another person/company but either way, not notable. A search at major newspaper Kansas City Star did not provide anything so obviously they're a small company and use more bizjournals and PR than actual news coverage. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 23:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 23:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Goto[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She actually does appear to have some notability in her field. In addition to the interviews in the article, I found a full story at ComputerWorld, a quote at Businessweek, and even coverage in Swedish. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like MelanieN, I found several links, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Google News but probably not enough for a good article. She seems to be fairly well known in the web design industry and Google Books also found some results but they mostly seem to recommendations on other books. I also found this (PR, I guess she did some "extensive research" for a company). In addition to that, I have found several other PR releases, probably about six. Minor mention in a CNET article and two more minor mentions here and here. Another link here (paywall) for speaking at a women's conference and another event here. I also found the Swedish link Melanie provided and I also found a Belgian minor mention (doesn't seem to be much). I also found what looks like a minor mention in Japanese. It seems to be mostly small stuff and links and it's unlikely the company is notable for its own article. Additional searches didn't find anything else useful. SwisterTwister talk 19:54, 10 November 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) 01:33, 11 November 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) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGI Awards[edit]

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

All references provided seem to be connected to the subject and no widespread coverage [[12]]. At most this should be a redirect to the organization that awards them but I'm not seeing how it passes WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOGIs are to the diving world what Oscars and Emmys are to the motion picture and television industries. There are already Wikipedia pages relative to those awards as well as others for music, etc. (For examples see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscars and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy). The NOGI is now in its 53rd year and merits one too. If you look at how many NOGI honorees are already subjects of Wikipedia articles and already mention their NOGI award on their page, you will see why this page is needed. And, if you read through you will see that the information is not simply copied and does not violate copyright. Although the list of the honorees contains the same information that can be found on the Academy of Underwater Arts & Sciences website, it is presented in a different and far more useful way, and it links to many of the honorees who have Wikipedia pages about them. I suspect others can add a great deal to this page and I highly encourage them to do so. The 53rd Annual Awards Gala is to be held in Orlando on November 7, 2013 and there will be international news coverage, perhaps some of that coverage will help strengthen this page. RebaLee74 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This source demonstrates some of what new User:RebaLee74 states above. A reasonable search turns up this and this. I'm satisfied this page covers a significant award ceremony associated with a narrow but recognized field. I'd think that lots of offline sources could be produced, the awards being presented for 50+ years. BusterD (talk) 23:33, 9 November 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) 01:11, 11 November 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) 01:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, Oscar of the diving world and some of the most important oceanographers, water-centric artists (i.e. Wyland), and under water filmmakers have won awards. Might have to be a stub, but it passes our general notability guidelines if you do your digging. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Note that it was relisted due to somewhat weak arguments, which got even weaker at the end. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:EVENT Not satisfied, tragic but WP is not a place for crime that sadly happens usually. Beerest355 Talk 20:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The death toll would seem to be more than just a simple crime to me. There have been much smaller instances of carnage that no one would question (ie the Boston Marathon attacks last year) that have articles as well. I believe this incident is outstanding in its scale given six people died. DarExc (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not remotely comparable with the Boston Marathon attacks, which were a major and (for the USA) very rare event - an Islamist bombing attack in the USA, a terrorist attack on American civilians, a globally massive news story for several days and still the subject of continued media interest shown by a series of subsequent controversies, news stories, various upcoming books, etc. In contrast, this is a sadly run-of-the-mill spree killing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a news outlet and it is not a memorial (which impression is given by multiple pictures of one of the victims). Tragic event but not an encyclopedic one. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have my own personal doubts as to the encyclopedic value of these types of articles, but this one seems to satisfy WP:EVENT: it's got coverage from multiple independent, national sources; the cited sources indicate a long-lasting effect on the politics of Seattle by igniting controversy over gun control and the militarization of the police; and the Feds got involved, citing concerns of a string of spree-shootings in Seattle. Clearly, there's something to discuss, even though this article seems more oriented toward the creation of a memorial. I won't miss it if it's deleted, but consensus seems to be that we keep these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes basic GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass the criteria of WP:EVENT: coverage has not "persist[ed] over a period of time". Article's citations are only for the week of the event. If this event had more lasting significance, as User:NinjaRobotPirate suggests, then add material to the article and cite it, or at least post a couple citations here, so that we can see the lasting significance. I'll gladly change my !vote if/when that happens. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:08, 5 November 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) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm very suspicious of crime articles, which usually fail the one event test, but this one appears to have just enough significant coverage over a year later in reliable secondary sources to keep. Like NinjaRobotPirate, I'm a bit dubious about whether news articles of this source are really appropriate to the project, but at this point it appears to qualify. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 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) 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:EVENT. The event attracted international coverage, still important at least locally a year later here, the event is included in dozens of papers, articles, news stories, etc. about shootings and guns consistently since it happened, and it's still a part of gun control discourse and a central figure in the "Gun Free Zone" controversies in Seattle. I'm not saying any of these are a slam dunk, but taht cases can be made for broad coverage, lasting effects, and prolonged coverage, any one of which can satisfy WP:EVENT. If you don't believe the links supporting any of these exist that's one thing, but them not being linked here is insufficient for deletion. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. Why on earth this was relisted twice (by the same person) is beyond me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrard Beeson[edit]

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

Not notable. Small town mayor, population 7,824 (2006). Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 08:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly non-notable. Gets no substantial hits on Google or Google News. Any coverage that exists would almost certainly be local. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as seems to meet WP:ANYBIO - recognition within field of endeavour (accountancy). NealeFamily (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yor're joking! Which part of this does he meet? 1) The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

2) The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7] Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep office-holder of national organisations.Rick570 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a criterion. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any major offices in national organisations anyway (not that they would establish notability if they existed): being an elected fellow of a major academic body fulfils WP:SCHOLAR but that doesn't apply to professional bodies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 18 November 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) 00:17, 11 November 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) 01:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NRP. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a small-town mayor with no particular notability beyond that. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Lack of third-party sources. Local politicians/office-holders are not notable in the absence of such sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an ARA (Auckland Regional Council) councillor for 12 years. Not just a "small-town mayor". Rick570 (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. ARA councillor still falls short of WP:POLITICIAN. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There is almost certainly coverage of this person, but they were prominent after papers past and before everything was digital. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this article appears to be a copyright violation from the Rotary source. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenton Communications[edit]

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

It's possible a proper article could be made, but there was nothing to salvage from the current page after the coatrack and primary sources were removed. CorporateM (Talk) 04:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I had been finding was routine staff announcements and had been tending to a WP:CORPDEPTH fail, until I reached the Washington Post article, now included as a reference. Arguably, the work in various campaigns is WP:NOTINHERITED but the fact that the Washington Post article itself cites a Fox News commentator on the company begins to suggest a more solid basis and that perhaps this could become a durable article subject. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we'll have to find better sources. I can say that in the non-profit and liberal causes world, Fenton is very famous, but it's hard to find sources about a PR company, because they intend to generally stay out of the press in favor of promoting their clients. Steven Walling • talk 09:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Steven Walling I actually have the opposite experience. Many PR companies are very aggressive about promoting themselves, because clients see the PR work the agency does for itself as a case study. It's sort of a circular thing. However, I generally don't buy into the argument of "PR-influenced sources" that are somehow disqualified because they are not "organic". Companies that do good PR will generate more sources for us to use. If Fenton does aggressive PR for themselves and get a lot of media coverage as a result, that's good news for anyone who takes an interest in their article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as a general rule, I highly frown on people who strip out most of a page's content before nominating it for deletion. If you want to discuss deleting a problematic page, then I think you ought to let people see the problems and what they have to work with, and not simply truncate the page first. The prior version certainly had issues and had been the subject of SPA editing, but some of that content might be made into something useful. Hell, even the original 2006 version had more content than what CorporateM (talk · contribs) left there before nominating this. Bad form in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't know if I will nominate the article for deletion, until I've removed the content not suitable for inclusion and see what's left. The 2006 version looks much better and I've reverted to that and re-inserted the sources someone added. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you also withdrawing the AFD nomination, cause you removed it from the article? Dragons flight (talk) 18:55, 11 November 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) 01:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the company is notable, and I admit that is partially because I have been familiar with their work for 30 years. I found significant coverage in two books called Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science and Who Will Tell The People: The Betrayal Of American Democracy. Their leading role in the campaign to ban Daminozide (Alar) in the apple industry in the 1980s is still studied and debated today. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now that the article has proper sources, it seems it should be kept. I did not intend to use AfD for cleanup, but rather was going through dozens of promotional articles and many of them would have been an improvement to Wikipedia if they were removed. Naturally, it's even better if editors take an interest in improving them. CorporateM (Talk) 18:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ärsha Vidya Sannyasi Disciples[edit]

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

Unsourced list of disciples of Dayananda Saraswati (Arsha Vidya), with no independent secondary source indicating that the disciples are notable individually, or as a group. Considered merging (parts) of the list into Arsha Vidya Gurukulam but there doesn't seem to be anything here that is worth merging (see discussion). Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 04:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 11 November 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) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thoroughly unsourced no indication of notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Spooling. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banner page[edit]

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

Deprodded. Search for sourcing turned up nothing but uses of the term — nothing that would possibly flesh this out beyond a dicdef. The fact that this has been completely untouched since 2006 is inexcusable. Fails WP:WINAD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Firstly this is a description of a 'thing' and is not a dictionary definition. I easily found this and this. Whether this is an appropriate subject for a standalone article or should be merged somewhere else (Printer (computing)?) is debatable. We probably have lots of articles that have not been significantly improved since 2006 - it isn't necessarily a reason for deletion. The other alternative is to work on it, which anyone can do - it isn't up to 'other people' to improve articles. --Michig (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard feature of a print spooler. It has nothing to do with dictionaries as our policy makes clear. If a banner tag has been there for seven years without result then it's the banner which is useless and which should be removed. Warden (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden: So in your words, no article should ever have an {{unreferenced}} on it? Also, "It's notable because it's notable" is hardly a valid argument. How about some sources, hmm? Or did you forget that part? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:13, 11 November 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) 01:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, so standard feature is irrelevant if not the subject of significant coverage in its own right (which may exist, but I don't see it here or in my brief search). Seems like it might be worth expanding upon in the print spool article though? --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to print spooler. The article is clearly more than a dicdef, going into history, purpose, and properties of banners. These were much more important in the early days of timeshare systems, when most computer output came in printed form and shared printing was standard. Sadly, a lot of those old computer manuals and magazines describing banner practice and styles are offline. Nonetheless, production of banner pages are part of most print spooler protocols, e.g., in Unix and in Windows. Banner pages are also described in books [18], [19] and in standards documents like RFC1179. I don't know if these sources are enough for a standalone article, but they are more than enough for a section in print spooler. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-M, merging of verifiable information is preferred over deletion, so merge to print spooler is recommended. --Mark viking (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to print spooler (thank you for the suggestion) where the content would fit in rather well. Likely search term. The nomination is completely inapposite and the "delete" !vote above seems to be favouring a merge. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actus Digital[edit]

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

Article is sourced mostly to press releases. There are some sources that could be scrounged, but since it is a subsidiary, it seems more appropriate for an article to be started on Taya Media Group, with this subsidiary mentioned briefly. CorporateM (Talk) 04:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 11 November 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) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my searches were consistent w/ nominator's, virtually everything I found for this firm were non-independent, press-release style promotional coverage, as are the article's sources. Boogerpatrol (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extending product life cycles[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, essay-like, only one source. Seems like a WP:HOWTO. untouched since 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any decent content should be in product lifecycle management. Steven Walling • talk 09:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't and that article links to this one. All that deletion would do is to create a red link. How is that helping? Warden (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden: There shouldn't be a red link. There should be a paragraph or two about extending product lifecycles in the main article. I would have proposed a merge, but this article is far too unencyclopedic to convert any significant part of it. Steven Walling • talk 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic being covered in sources such as Advanced Business. Just needs development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden: Development with what? The single source? I wasn't aware that only one source is all it took. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 11 November 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) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DiskAid[edit]

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

A non-notable third-party software application, fails guidelines at WP:N. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 11 November 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) 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Lifehacker external link is borderline reliable, and a search revealed similar brief review and download sites, but no significant RS coverage. Also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elly Akira[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Lacking ghits and and gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. reddogsix (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable. She is a famous AV star in Japan and one of the few that has made it big in China. There's Wikipedia entries in 3 other languages about her and mentioned in two other places in Wikipedia. MaytheFarcebewithYou (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This is a difficult one, first because she has been active under so many different names: Elly Akira (晶エリー), Yuka Osawa (大沢佑香), and her own name of Fareeza Terunuma (照沼ファリーザ). It is clear her AV career was a long one, but what seems most pertinent to WP:PORNBIO is that she won a best new actress award at the 2007 Pink Grand Prix: [20]. Also, she is active as a photographer and performance artist, and won an award at the 12th edition of Geisai, an art festival put on by Takashi Murakami: [21]. She is also getting her own solo exhibitions: [22]. The article already has a link to some English articles on her artistic activities, though I am not sure if these are RS or not. Again, this is a tough one, but I lean keep because of the awards. Michitaro (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more I can do to expand on her profile but the translations take a long. Also, she's got an entry in IMDB MaytheFarcebewithYou (talk) 02:19, 12 November 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) 01:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added more material to the article. In addition to the Pink Grand Prix prize mentioned above, she also won two awards at the 2009 AV Grand Prix, the most prestigious adult video awards in Japan at that time. She is a prominent and exceedingly prolific AV actress who was nominated as Best Actress at the Adult Broadcasting Awards and was voted as one of the top 100 best AV actresses of all time in a recent poll. She is also an award-winning artist with mainstream credits in other media. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Cherryblossom1982[reply]

Comment. More info has been added to the page. She easily passes WP:PORNBIO on several counts and passes WP:BIO as an entertainer and an artist.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heart China[edit]

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

I created this article many years ago, back in 2008. Looking in hindsight, this article is 100% non-notable, unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, the citations used are definitely not reliable sources (they are mostly blogs and internet forum posts). Back then, my knowledge of Wikipedia policy was much more limited compared to today. Hence, I am requesting deletion, speedily if possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 November 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) 01:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably - there is a bare scrap here about the online protests and a couple of sentences about an offline version which may or may not be related, otherwise nothing. That first scrap may be enough to justify redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found another minor source here and an article but I know nothing about the reliability of the source. Another article here from a "blog" maintained by the Wall Street Journal. I've already spent more time on this than I ever thought I would so I leave it to other interested parties to decide whether this squeaks the subject past the threshold of notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable usage of <3 symbol, a universally recognized symbol of support or affection, as a passing fad. if the teenagers of Tokyo suddenly wore their backpacks on their left shoulder, we would not make an entry.-SetagayaJ (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Plastikspork per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax." (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 24[edit]

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

Article about a race that was broadcast on television. The article lacks context and consists of a table, a very vague lede and no sources. No evidence of notability or encyclopedic value. - Mr X 01:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until notability can be established. I couldn't find anything on WP:SPEEDY for this article so I assume it has to go through the general AfD process. Also, a minor note, this is a program that hasn't actually yet aired on TV. It will air sometime in the spring of 2014 and by then, its name will start making the rounds when it gets close to the airdate and eventually become an article that passes WP:GNG. Until then, this is just an article of a table of nonexistant information. Antoshi ☏ ★ 03:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: This should fall under the {{db-hoax}} issue, as whoever made the page just copied stuff from the other existant articles to make this table for a cast that certainly isn't happening.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Uh, not only is it crazy to call it "an obvious hoax" as csd requires, it's simply not a hoax. There is precedent for the article (see The Amazing Race 23 and every number before that, and even the most cursory google search turns up information that corroborates what's here. For example. However, it hasn't aired yet and the article provides nothing other than a list of the teams and a framework for what will be relevant for this article in the future -- so still delete. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StarLightMedia Group[edit]

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

Article contains no sources. It is an advertisement + Original Research. CorporateM (Talk) 14:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see how this company can be considered non-notable unless there is a factual dispute about what is stated in the article introduction. Is it not a large broadcaster in Ukraine? Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:44, 12 November 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) 01:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps the sources and content from the more promising versions of this article on the Russian or Ukranian Wikipedias would be helpful. The article here does need a lot of work, though -- probably the first order of business would be to axe most of the unsourced content beyond the lede for now.--Rhododendrites (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite article using information from the Russian or Ukranian Wikipedia. This article obviously needs a lot of work, but it still has notability. Novusuna ^talk 18:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Juares[edit]

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

No sign of notability + Original Research as there are no sources CorporateM (Talk) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 11 November 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) 01:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is filled with alot of information but getting to the bottom of it and looking at IMDb, alot of his films are indie short films that he has made himself (editing, directing, writing and producing). Furthermore, his other work has been behind the scenes for which he has not received considerable attention and Google News searches have failed to provide anything for that work including the songwriting. A Google News search provided mostly press releases and additional searches found either some more press releases or nothing. Some of the press releases also mentioned his two companies which appear to be equally non-notable. Basically, he hasn't had a noticeable big break. No prejudice towards a future article if the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atkore International[edit]

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

Might be notable, but right it miserably fails our basic requirements for verification of notability per the requirements for companies. Steven Walling • talk 09:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found a lot of press releases but very little in the way of independent coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 11 November 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) 01:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys just wanted to revisit this...Atkore is now a publically traded company on the NYSE...are you sure it is not "noteworthy"? I think your previous criteria were very misguided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faypatri (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - If there are many good ghits they're drowned by press releases. Seems to fail WP:ORG. They are, however, notable enough to have their press releases picked up by a number of otherwise reliable sources (Reuters, Wall Street Journal, etc.) -- but no independent coverage. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zathyus Networks[edit]

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

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines. A previous article named ZetaBoards was deleted in the past and now redirects to this article. SarahStierch (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 11 November 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) 01:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG: A company/organization "is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Only sources given are primary, and the first few pages of a Google search are no help. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ZetaBoards and InvisionFree are common forum hosts but obviously the parent company (Zathyus Networks) has not received as much attention. Multiple searches including Google News provided nothing (no news coverage or even in-depth for that matter) and there's not even much information about the company itself. Not much to even improve the article's current state. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtship of Princess Leia[edit]

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

Article is nothing but a long and overly-detailed plot summary. The only assertion of notability is that the book was a New York Times best seller, something I have yet to be able to confirm. Regardless, simply being an NYT best seller is not enough to establish notability. No third-party reviews in reliable sources, no news coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:NBOOK. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This appears to be the only substantial source. This one looked promising, but it only seems to be a plot summary. I found no other reviews, so I endorse deletion, but I wouldn't throw a fit if it stayed. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK #1 multiple book reviews. This book was popular in 1994, on the NYT Bestseller list, thus received attention.

"The Courtship of Princess Leia", Publishers Weekly, April 4, 1994
"`Star Wars' lives with `Princess Leia' novel", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 21, 1994
"Star Wars: The Courtship of Princess Leia", The Hamilton Spectator, May 23, 2003
"STAR WARS: THE COURTSHIP OF PRINCESS LEIA", Kirkus Reviews, March 1, 1994
"Book reviews: Fiction", Library Journal, 3/15/1994, Vol. 119 Issue 5, p104
"FROM THE BOOKSHELF", The Commercial Appeal, Sunday, June 19, 1994. Abstract: Reviews The Courtship of Princess Leia. (Source: NewsBank)
"STAR WARS PLANET SEEMS LOT LIKE UTAH", The Deseret News (Salt Lake City, UT), Monday, May 16, 1994. Abstract: Reviews The Courtship of Princess Leia. (Source: NewsBank)
"The Courtship of Princess Leia", Booklist, February 15, 1994

By comparison, "many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed" (Virginia Tech University Library). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with those reviews is that they appear either to be very short (a paragraph or two, thus not substantive) or from local papers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the VT link where they define the three types of book reviews. The point is not the type (summary/opinion/scholarly), but the book has been reviewed in reliable sources. Nearly all Publishers Weekly are summary type, and PW is considered a reliable source. As for local.. if all the sources were local to one place it would be discarded, but we don't discard a source just for being local, unless of course the locality is where the author is from, not the case here (I believe). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NBOOK #1 which allows a mix of shorter and longer reviews, as long as some of them have critical analysis/opinion. This doesn't exclude regional/local press - I'm not sure what policy Jerry Pepsi is basing his/her concern upon, but certainly it's not the case that interest is limited to a particular small region (unless you consider the USA to be a small region whose interests are not necessarily those of the world). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 13 November 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) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The thing about trade reviews is that there has not been a clear consensus on whether or not to discount them as reliable sources. Every once in a while there will be an argument to officially eliminate them as reliable sources (mostly under the argument that they're likely paid reviews and that they're almost always uniformly positive as a result), but there will always be someone who will argue against those points. The end result is that although they're brief, most trade review sites do not sell reviews and those that do will have them marked in a certain way. (IE, Kirkus Indie) The reviews, although brief, do go through an editorial process, which makes them pass RS guidelines. However we're lucky that we do have non-trade sources to pull from, as it might be a different story if all we had were trade reviews. (There's a difference between trying to save a book that has predominantly trade reviews but some other RS and trying to save one that only has trade reviews.) On a side note, I'm glad this could be saved, as this is my favorite SW book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK criteria #1. But perhaps the plot summary could be edited down to a more reasonable size. Novusuna ^talk 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not something I'd read (except at gunpoint) but it was a bestseller and fairly widely reviewed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can Akkaya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated article that was previously deleted. I think he might fail our general sports bio guidelines, including statements like "Even though he never won a major title, he had the reputation to be a promising racer for the World Championships."

Anyway, I think he might fail our General Notability Guidelines in English Wikipedia. SarahStierch (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 11 November 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) 01:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication notability has significantly changed since the last AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show he accomplished anything notable as a motorcycle racer or to show he's a notable teacher.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray S.K. 9–2 Beşiktaş J.K.[edit]

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

A high-scoring match, but no evidence to show that it's notable in its own right. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in any reliable sources. Giant Snowman 13:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's notable. You can find similar articles. Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C.1886kusagi (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable please add sources that meet WP:GNG because they are not in the article at present. FWIW the other match also has not had notability demonstrated yet. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 14:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources in the article are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's clearly notable. LardoBalsamico (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable please add sources that meet WP:GNG because they are not in the article at present. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Other examples of notable matches such as this exist, as mentioned earlier. Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:30, 16 November 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) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This match holds the record for being the highest-scoring match between Galatasaray and Besiktas, but that's about it. There is nothing to suggest that this match has any long-lasting notability outside those two clubs, and that's not enough to be kept here. The Nottingham Forest F.C. 1–8 Manchester United F.C. article mentioned above only exists because it holds the record as the biggest away win in Premier League history. – PeeJay 21:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the record for biggest Premier League away win were to be broken would it make the NFFC 1-8 MUFC game non-notable and an article that should be deleted? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a very high bar for individual matches, and this doesn't pass it. Besides being a bad argument anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFF also supports deletion—see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C.. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, this is not a record match per this for the top flight in Turkey. The biggest win is by ten goals and the highest scoring game contained 12 goals. This game contained only 11 and the margin of victory was only 7. A high-scoring game, but nonetheless not a record. No indication of significant wider discussion per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to MASS Engineering. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Motors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable bus company fails GNG, Apart from car dealers I've found nothing to say this company existed
(1st nom was TW failing on me Apologies!) -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Merge Company seems to be known as Leon Motor Services and sources such as this one discuss it, noting: "Leon Motor Services, owned by Mr and Mrs Leonard Heath, began to operate this service too in the 1920's and the morning and afternoon shifts were shared between the two companies. They worked together until 1951 when Leon took over. Eventually they moved their garage to Old Bawtry Road. Leon continued to run the bus service for Finningley until recent times." Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This one reference still doesn't warrant it an article, and the only proof of the company existing is the article .... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:14, 15 November 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) 01:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG per nom. The Finningley.org reference above hardly constitutes "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources." It's a hyperlocal community site (not exactly mainstream press). Also, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention." The entirety of its presence in the article is quoted above. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your reasonable argument I am changing my vote to merge. No reason it shouldn't be mentioned in the article on the parent company that bought it out. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hadn't checked but it is indeed mentioned on that page. Specifically, "The company also purchased the long established company, Leon Motors of Doncaster, but by 2008 the companies stage-carriage work passed to First South Yorkshire and the remaining operations were integrated into the main BrightBus depot at North Anston." It sounds like Leon doesn't even exist anymore, swallowed up by MASS's BrightBus. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The fact that the company no longer exists does not mean that it has become NN. Notability is in principle not temporary. However, I am extremely doubtful whether a local bus operator, even one that survived for a full 80 years should count as notable, barring something unusual about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address why redirecting it to an article where it's covered wouldn't work? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Basadur Creative Problem Solving Profile[edit]

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

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

The article is essentially a lengthy essay about a commercially offered [23] method of measuring an employee's approach to creativity. (The article emphatically denies that it's a personality test, though I didn't really catch what was the difference.) No third-party references - sourced solely to research papers by the author and his collaborators. Borderline promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding Marino (Min) Sidney Basadur to this nomination. (It's an article about the creator of this profile, also with no third-party references.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:35, 13 November 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) 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Basadur Creative Problem Solving Profile as clearly failing GNG. No comment on Basadur himself, for which there might be a better claim to notability but I haven't looked for sources. Certainly the page as it stands now isn't acceptable -- lacking secondary sources, reads like a CV. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Glyn Brown[edit]

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

Seems to be little more than a local celebrity, if that. In my view, he does not meet WP:BASIC (for lack of depth of coverage) or WP:ANYBIO (as there is no substantiation of the notability of the award he did receive). All his coverage falls under WP:LOCAL, and he is simply not known outside of Houston media coverage. Everything else about his businesses out-of-state (apparently designed to show greater visibility) is drawn from public records, which falls under WP:PRIMARY, as it is the business itself that files the papers. Half of the article is about random court cases the subject was involved in over the years. His supposed unique surgical technique isn't, and overall, I don't see how this subject really meets notability criteria. MSJapan (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Article lists a dispute about the seemingly non-notable "technique" he came up with. The only thing worth mentioning globally is the congressional medal, which only matters to Republicans. — Wylie pedia 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage is no longer so local: "Michael Glyn Brown’s Hand Centers to Fold." The Wall Street Journal. October 16, 2013. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a BIO article, not an article about the company. If it is the company that is receiving the coverage, it is not pertinent to show notability of Brown, because notability is not inherited, and I'm pretty sure we follow the idea that a CEO/president/founder of a notable company is not necessarily notable. Secondly, you're showing by citation that the article was published in WSJ, but the link is to the WSJ blogs. I'm not entirely sure that that is considered the same level of reliable coverage as if it were to be on the main site. MSJapan (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The decline of Brown's company corresponded with the end of appearances of Brown-centered commercials. Since he started the company, any coverage of the company talks about him as person. In any case the WSJ article talks about Brown as a person. As for "blog" sections, Wikipedia:RS states ""Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG." WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeah, I thought it looked like a local controversy, too, but it turns out that he's got some national coverage: WSJ newsblog, ABC News, NY Daily News. Most of the coverage is indeed local, but he seems to be just barely notable enough to perhaps squeak by. I also noted some articles in tabloids that I ignored, plus some local papers outside of Texas. Apparently, the man made enemies in all the border states, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He has coverage in the UK too: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493413/Michael-Brown-hand-surgeon-bankrupt-dies-heart-attack.html WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that's one of the tabloids that I discounted as a reliable source. The other was the New York Post. If they said today were Sunday, I'd check it with three different sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Daily Mail isn't a tabloid like the Weekly World News. In the UK many papers are in a tabloid format. There have been questions about its reliability brought up on the RS noticeboard but I think in this case it can be used. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source as an example. In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_112#Daily_Mail a Wikipedian warned not to use the Daily Mail as the only source of a sensational claim, but for what I sourced from the article the details don't sound fantastical. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except these are a rehash of what we already know from the article and other sources, and I'm personally not fond of deciding somebody was notable in life just because their obit went viral on the newswire. If all we've got is that he was married four times and in court all the time for domestic assault, what's the point? Because he's a doctor and has money from a business it makes a difference and he's somehow notable for it? MSJapan (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        MSJapan, the quotes from the various journalists say why he was notable: Because A. he appeared in prominent advertisements promoting his business, B. because of his association with the rich and famous and his jet set lifestyle, and C. because of his embarrassing scandals involving domestic abuse, divorce, and drugs. One of the non-Houston sources, the WSJ source, is about the failure of his business. Another, the New York Daily News source, is actually about a person filing a lawsuit against Brown WhisperToMe (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salvage contents about the company -- If the most notable thing about him is his company, suggest rework this article form a BIO to an article about the company, and salvage what we can. Per notability is not inherited, I do not think the person is worthy of their own article. Lesion (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Considering Wikipedia:GNG, why do you feel it does not meet this notability requirement? I believe, due to the extensive coverage, it meets GNG, which means he is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are additional non-Houston sources which further illustrate it meets GNG.
Staff of the Phoenix Business Journal. "Brown Hand Center founder faces DV charge." Phoenix Business Journal. August 25, 2010.

"Here is the latest Texas news from The Associated Press." (Archive) (includes short blurb on Michael Brown) KRGV-TV (Rio Grande Valley region of Texas). November 9, 2013.
WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the closing admin I added sentences that state explicitly why he is notable. Hopefully these sentences should clear things up. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 17 November 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) 00:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fairly notable and article is of good quality, no reason to delete. Cexycy (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a lot of sources for a person claimed not to be notable. EdJohnston (talk) 07:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Sokolove[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. All coverage is WP:LOCAL - partocularly, the article is almost entirely sourced to one article in Boston Magazine, and the other source (used once) is the Boston Business Journal. I removed some information that was sourced directly to his company bio as SPS. The subject is likely well-known from local TV ads, but there is not one notable case in which he has been involved that has made even the local news. There is in fact a remarkable dearth of coverage given the length of his career (30 years with his own firm, plus prior experience). There is a fair bit of criticism recently about his company, but that is separate from his status as a biographical subject. MSJapan (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment - I made several changes to the article, including adding a few sources, removing some fluff and adding a criticism section. He's a controversial figure as the firm's head and its spokesperson/face. He's been involved himself in public talks and misc. legal initiatives (e.g. the Roadmap to Justice Project through Stanford, which I didn't include because I don't know much about it yet). He doesn't try cases himself so you won't find any. His law firm acts only as lead generators for other firms. ...And that's a big part of why he's notable. He started in Boston -- and is, I'm sure, best known there -- but has grown to be national (select states). ...Anyway, take a look at the article as it stands now. There's enough there, and I'm posting more sources on the talk page if someone wants to expand further. --Rhododendrites (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that he doesn't really do anything to be notable that you can really figure out, but that his firm is notable for its business practices. Scope of coverage aside, notability is not inherited. If the notability is his firm, then this should be an article about the LLC with a small blurb on him, not the other way around. Also, you've got the exact same date (meaning D,M, and Y) on two apparently independent sources, so that might need another look. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. It is he that is well known, he is the one who gets the press (with mention of "& Associates" as secondary), and he who is the controversial figure. In other words, he is the brand (which he is even looking to franchise according to one of the cited sources) while his law firm(s) have gone by many different names. If he's not notable, the law firm certainly isn't. --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He's the first attorney in the U.S. to create a large scale legal business based on TV advertising. He's one of the most well-known attorneys and television faces in the United States, and his associates practice in all 50 states (http://www.onthemedia.org/story/159134-upside-legal-advertising/transcript/). I don't know of any other lawyer that has done that. Clearly notable albeit controversial. Swampyank (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 November 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) 00:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He certainly has more notoriety in Boston (growing up there, it was hard to miss his TV ads). But he does have coverage outside of Boston media, such as this blog post from the Wall Street Journal's law blog and the Madison-St. Clair Record. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rework into an article about his company. According to the article his associates operate in every state, so he doesn't seem to be of purely local notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 16:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M Nehrbass[edit]

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

Not notable. References are not sufficient, are from self-published sources, or have only passing mention of the article subject. Fails to meet GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Refs are as follows:

Local paper, local coverage.
Self-published.
Self-published.
Self-published.
Local paper, local coverage.
Self-published, organization he runs.
Self-published, organization he runs.
Trivial coverage, passing mention in article on another person.
Self-published, uploaded by organization he runs.
Trivial coverage, passing mention in article.
Trivial coverage, passing mention in article, basically a duplicate of above.
Trivial coverage, passing mention in article.
Not reliable source, blog.

As indicated above, not enough to meet WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 02:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 03:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 00:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Nightlight Christian Adoptions. The organisation is certainly notable. Searching finds some hits with the name "Dan Nehrbass." The nom appears not to have done a WP:BEFORE check, and just looked at what's in the article. -- 101.119.14.254 (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)— 101.119.14.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge per previous contributor, but mainly the adoption section. I not that the previous leader of that organisation has a redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. References in the article are not all as nominator described. For instance, the book by Wipf and Stock is not a self-published source. Not all websites referenced are organizations run by the subject of the article. Local news sources are significant, and have credibility. User:Kristinan1994 —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Kristinan1994 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. GregJackP Boomer! 06:18, 17 November 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) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GregJackP's excellent analysis of the sources. A merge isn't out of the question, but with seemingly no reliably-sourced biographical information, it's not clear what, specifically, could be merged. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Red vs. Blue. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Zuelch[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG Beerest355 Talk 02:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least two recurring roles as a voice actor. The series are internet-based but apparently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 11 November 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) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Red vs. Blue which seems to mention her the most and her best known role. Honestly, I was actually on the fence because I agree with Eastmain that she is considerably recognized for the two recurring voice roles but the problem is that pretty much everything will be sourced by IMDb which is fine for the work listing but there's nothing else to improve this article. Obviously, this is to blame on the fact she's hasn't that much work aside from the best known roles but also because she's worked more behind the scenes also. Google News searches found nothing but while performing an additional search, I found two links here and here but they are brief at most and aren't useful for in-depth. Even voice actors themselves don't get much in-depth coverage depending on the broadness of their work (actors such as Tom Kenny and Grey DeLisle are notable and recognized for example). The Rwby article also mentions her but I think Red vs. Blue is the best. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply not notable per guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Jerry. Per GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of international relations institutes and organisations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. The article is nothing else but a collector of links of institutions that doesn't pass WP:A7 (in most cases). Although it may have potential, the article itself was created as one, and it really needs third-party sources that explain why the institutes and organizations are listed under the "international relations institutes and organisations" category. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 05:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An unmanageably loose list. Akin to List of things that are brown. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really do not see the point of the above analogy. It's not a "List of organizations that have q in their name", or "list of organization founded in even numbered years", or even "List of organizations calling themselves institutes", all of which are indeed non-distinctive classes. It's lists or institutes and other organizations devoted to a particular very well defined subject that are notable enough for articles in WP. It's as good as any other subject oriented list of organizations, DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 8 November 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, Mr.Z-man 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A useful article. The comment about List of things that are brown is silly. LordFixit (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer List of American companies? List of small consumer products? Carrite (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're shitting me........... That's blue? I'd vote delete on that uselessly incomplete and utterly incompletable topic as well. Carrite (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get out of the way on this, per David G. and the OTHERSTUFF argument I have just managed to make. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 11 November 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) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases[edit]

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

Not a notable subject; shows are released on home video all the time. We don't need this essential catalog to tell us which episodes are on which set Beerest355 Talk 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 03:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't the Criterion Collection. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. MST3K is indeed a notable subject, and a list of video releases, like a list of episodes, is based on the notability of the list set as a whole: List of X elements is notable if X is notable. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "List of X elements is notable if X is notable"? That contradicts WP:NOTINHERITED. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. From NOTINHERITED, regarding "subordinate" elements of notable topics as we have here: "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." In other words, it's a question of whether the detail is relevant and encyclopedic or excessive and trivial (i.e., does it belong in an article on the series), and then a question of whether WP:SIZE dictates a WP:SPINOUT. AFD after AFD has demonstrated consensus for this view, particularly if this is comparable to a list of episodes. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Video releases are routinely included in articles about film and television. A full listing within the lead article for the series would overwhelm it; this is a legitimate spin-out article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why do we need this full list? Just say "the show has been released on DVD." That wouldn't be overwhelming. Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the show in its entirety has not been released on DVD and because of rights issues with the underlying films likely never will be. Look at any multi-season TV series article and you're likely to see a video release section that gives the dates that each season was released in the various regions. This article serves the same function, only this series is not released by season. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bad analogy. DVD of TV series and movies are of original works. What we have here are just packagings of films that just happened to have been reaired on a particular show. A better comparison would be to something like a CD of songs played on American Bandstand. Mentions could be made in the individual film articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at all an accurate description of this series (or these DVDs); it does not merely replay or package movies. Have you never watched it? There is always substantial original content, in the form of the running commentary that mocks the film as it plays (both the audio and the silhouettes of the characters overlayed across the bottom of the screen as the audience, often doing pantomime interactions with the movies), and in multiple comedy segments with the actors and robots puppets that play before, after, and at various interruptions in the movies. postdlf (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You guys, just saying. I don't see what is notable about having an entire list. It has no place in the main article, but why does it have any place here at all? The subject of video releases are not notable. Beerest355 Talk 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not even a notable show. --2601:C:4380:50:81C8:ACEB:5048:D437 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...what? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:30, 16 November 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) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Home video releases of TV shows are generally tracked. The nature of MST3K and its publishing releases do make it more complicated than most (its had two different distributors and there's no "season" releases due to size and licensing issues). There are probably some simplifications that could be made but its not drastically going to cut down the size as to be included in the main MST3K article. --MASEM (t) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masem and my comments above. The delete !votes so far are based on a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter and/or applicable guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IAR. Going strictly by letter of policy, this really shouldn't exist, as I doubt any reliable sources have covered it in any real detail. However, it also provides valuable information that aids reader understanding of MST3K, which has a far more complex video release history than most shows and even serious fans often find confusing. So we have a contradictory situation where an article should neither be kept nor deleted, where the ideal situation would be for it to be a section in the main article but it's simply too large. Since the information is in no way controversial, isn't promotional, and does help reader understanding of the broader concept, keep as slightly out of policy but in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. The show is the notable topic here, the packaging and medium isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make much sense, as the video releases are covered as an element of the topic of the show as is standard. This has already been commented on above, such as by Masem. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Covering home video releases is usually standard as per WP:WEIGHT i.e. we tend to briefly summarise releases across different media on articles where notability of the topic has already been established. That is quite different to having articles solely devoted to its release in one medium. Like the nominator says, it reads like a catalog and there is no detailed coverage in reliable sources of the video releases. The list as it stands is basically a sales brochure. As the editor above notes, it technically fails the letter of the policy, except I don't agree with his assessment that IAR is justified in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very valuable reference to an ongoing licensing fiasco. Unlike other shows (and like Criterion) they are not able to simply release episodes at will, as they have to negotiate rights with the current copyright holders of each and every film they study/ridicule. It will likely take another decade before they can release all 200+ movies, and meanwhile, this is a great article for identifying how the movies are/will be available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.60.44 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Borderline case, but the only user voting keep has admitted that legitimate sources are few and far between, and theones that have been found remain dubious per other commentors. Relisting again doesn't seem likely to change much of anything. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hawk Wings[edit]

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

Trivia. This article is about a fictional power source for a series DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable plot details. Fails the WP:GNG. Only references in the article are to fansites, and I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep or merge. They appear in at least six separate anime series along with the respective manga and in several feature length anime movies. One of the references is not from a fan site. Other non-fan site references are available, but there is no point in adding them if the article is going to be deleted. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now is the EXACT time they need to be added if they exist. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now has more refs than many if not most anime articles. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some back and forth in the cites, I believe most now meet WP:RS. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, there are still fan blogs and fan sites. It needs to establish notability. Look at Itachi Uchiha, even that can barely establish notability and can even be redirected if a strong enough case is brought up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from AnimeFringe article and the Funimation article, the rest of the references are not RS. Anime News Network's encyclopaedia area is not RS: See this, nor is MyAnimeList

Comment: This could be incorporated into the main Tenchi Muyo! article. Extremepro (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying for a wide range of sources, but that appears to have been a bad idea. I wrongly assumed the Anime News Network was RS because it appears to be the main and often only ref many anime articles have. So far having two good refs is better than what many Tenchi related articles have, but I do realize (per my first comment) that even ten good refs for this article would not be enough to keep it from being deleted or merged into another article not having even one good ref. I should have taken my own advice from above. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network's news, reviews, and articles are reliable sources, and that portion of Anime News Network is one of the best English language sources on anime that is available. However, the encyclopedia portion of the site contains mostly user-submitted content, so it isn't a reliable source. Many anime articles here link to the encyclopedia portion of Anime News Network in the external links section, but only the news, reviews, and columns should be used as an actual reference. Calathan (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one of the Anime News Network refs is okay for a total of three RS refs. How many RS refs is it going to take to prevent this from being deleted? Digging up appropriate refs is a lot of work, so I don't want to needlessly waste my time. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:52, 19 November 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) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the RS refs are now up to four, but it's slow going finding them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anadolu Pop[edit]

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

Self sourced niche musical style. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

apply WP:TNT This may be a valid term, but for something entirely different, as I've found this book reference using the term for an older Turkish rock genre. There's no mention of the band in question in the reference. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to allow a new start, possibly along the lines suggested by Mangoe --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LinkUp[edit]

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

Non notable bus company Fails GNG, I suggest Merge/Redirect as such -Davey2010Talk! 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 November 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) 00:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive. There doesn't seem to be enough notability to justify a separate article on the LinkUp system. Novusuna ^talk 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bednar[edit]

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

I do not think that David Bednar meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). The policy requires that he be the subject of multiple sources, but Bednar is usually mentioned in connection with his role as general manager of the Canadian National Exhibition. Furthermore, most of the sources cited in this article were published by the same newspaper, The Toronto Star, so notability has not been established by multiple, independent sources. Edge3 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Bednar is one of the highest profile civil servants in the GTA. Yes, there is very little about Bednar's theatre career, but his role in the organization simply didn't warrant press coverage. I did find a Daily Commercial News and Construction Record reference to his time with the Yonge BIA. As for his role in the CNE and personal life, I've been able to track down content in the Globe, Canadian Champion, Maclean's. He appears regularly on television and radio on behalf of the CNE, but those sources are next to impossible to cite, thanks to their fleeting nature. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 5 November 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, ES &L 12:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra content. I can see that Bednar has been covered in the news sources quite often, but that coverage usually covers the CNE more than Bednar himself. In other words, the CNE is usually the source's subject, and Bednar is quoted by the news source solely to provide more information about the CNE. However, I do note that there are two sources that have a more "biographical" focus on Bednar, such as [24] and [25]. These sources might be enough to establish notability, but I'm still not so sure. Edge3 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 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) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the GNG based on multiple, independent sources --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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