Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 February	27 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Southern Premier Soccer League. J04n(talk page) 15:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 SPSL season[edit]

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

Unsourced article that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Previous afd failed to reach consensus largely due to improper bundling. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this season (or league) hasn't received sufficient attention in reliable sources to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Southern Premier Soccer League. Giant Snowman 09:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Southern Premier Soccer League. This subject shouldn't be a stand-alone article, but is a likely search-term. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above (preferred) OR rename to 2010–11 Southern Premier Soccer League season which is the appropriate name Stuartyeates (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accounting’s Role in the Late 2000’s Financial Crisis[edit]

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

This article appears to consist largely of the author's own synthesis of cited sources. Although the citations are good and solid, the author draws conclusions based on xyr own interpretation of the cited articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I suspect that, as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational and Natural Theories of Management, this might be someone's homework. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep, on second thought. The tone needs work, but this is mainstream history and worth saving. I turned the "Background" paragraph into a head paragraph. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very standard stuff, with lots of coverage saying these sorts of things. Could do with a rename perhaps to "Auditors". Also Fair value section perhaps should go to the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep. Rename to Accounting and the late 2000's financial crisis. There seems to be valuable content (and a notable topic) we should preserve, despite the essayish tone. Biosthmors (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep as above. If I understand correctly it also needs to be tagged for globalisation, because it appears to assume an US perspective. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kami-Con[edit]

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

Almost all the sources are from the con itself, a con directory, or the university that hosts it. The only non-primary sources are trivial mentions, saying that Famous Person X will be at the con. I feel that even with the new sources, it still fails WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but weak. While sourcing is not the greatest, I feel the ones listed are enough to warrant keeping the article. Esw01407 (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage from at least some reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brown, Melissa (February 5, 2012). "Thousands of anime, other costumed creatures overrun UA's Ferguson Center for Kami-Con 4". The Huntsville Times. Huntsville, AL: Advance Publications. Retrieved February 27, 2013.
  - Isn't that WP:LOCAL? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we were talking about just the city of Birmingham or a town I would agree with you but when you include an entire state combined with the third party sources I dont think WP:LOCAL would apply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, WP:LOCAL is only an essay. It hasn't been accepted by the community as a policy or guideline. Altairisfar (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 The article makes no actual claim to why it is significant, there is not a single interdependent, reliable source that covers the subject in detail used to support the article, nor can I find one. LGA _talk^edits 07:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Indeed, one is linked here, directly above your !vote, for clarity. - Dravecky (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - From a blog ? LGA _talk^edits 10:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - AL.com is the collective official site of The Huntsville Times, The Birmingham News, and the Mobile Press-Register, the three largest newspapers in the state of Alabama, all of which are owned by Advance Publications. That their web addresses tend to have "blog" in the url is a quirk of some long-ago IT setting up the site, not the nature of the publication. - Dravecky (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky and sources found by me, has the sources to pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky and Knowledgekid87. Altairisfar (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received significant coverage in reliable sources; specifically, one of Alabama's leading newspapers. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 04:27, 3 March 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 (technically a G7, but the article was almost certainly a hoax as well). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Tempera[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced that this is a factual article. It is supposed to be about a soccer goalkeeper who played "professionally for several teams in the USL First Division". Yet Google finds absolutely no trace of this. Of course, media coverage of the USL is not all that good but it's still very unusual. There's a claim that he signed in 2011 with A.C. Perugia Calcio. Google never heard of that either. And the article claims that in 2010 "rumours swirled that Diego would move to the Spanish club Sporting de Gijón" but it seems like they didn't swirl very hard. In any case, the whole claim is dubious because 36 year old American goalkeepers who are not good enough for the MLS are unlikely to be of much interest for second division European clubs. The article provides a reference to this book but Google doesn't appear to find any occurrence of that name in the book. So basically, I think this is a hoax. Pichpich (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherussery Ahmed Kutty Musliyar[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this person is notable. There are no sources, and the previous AfD didn't find any, either. I found one, [1], but he is mentioned only in passing. Even if we take everything in the article to be "true", it appears that he was a devout Muslim and a teacher. Even the overly praising article contains no indication that he did anything that meets Wikipedia's sense of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I PRODded this and sent it to the first AfD...still isn't notable. Go Phightins! 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V - no sourcing despite repeated requests (including one AfD that went dead for lack of participation) to do so, for most of the article. We need not discuss notability since verifiable sources that do more than passing mention do not occur (far from sufficient to write a biography), and from what I see in Gbooks, the link above doesn't do more than confirm that the subject existed. Closing admin: please disregard this opinion if enough sources to write a proper bio have appeared by the end of this discussion. Ray^Talk 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. How did this even survive the first nomination for deletion? No proof of notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it wasn't taken to the academics and educators AfD forum. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. There is a mention of the subject here. But, that is hardly sufficient to create a bio article. Salih (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gulati[edit]

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

Orphaned article does not meet general notability guideline MusikAnimal (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, puff piece on a minor businessperson with little coverage in reliable third-party sources. WP:ENTREPRENEUR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contently[edit]

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

Non-notable, run of the mill company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage in independent sources that would suggest this company meets the demands of WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as making no claim of minimal importance. Full text: Contently Inc. is a New York-based technology company that provides tools for journalists and publishers, primarily commercial brands. The company was founded by Joe Coleman, David T. Goldberg, and Shane Snow in December 2010. Without a clearer idea of what they make or do, this isn't enough; the funding reference and what looks to be an interview with a co-founder in an alumni magazine establish only that it exists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried a speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capt Aditya Goel[edit]

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

Holder of a trivial record (youngest Indian with a student pilot license). The article mentions that the record is recognized by the India Book of Records and the Asia Book of Records. Wikipedia is not a book of records, especially for records so insignificant and so dependent on local regulation. The Asia book of records says that he got it at 16 when "the normal age is 18" which would suggest he got it through bending regulation. In fact that might not be the case since this page suggests that any 16 year old in India can apply for a private pilot license. Not so surprisingly, I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NOT INSIGNIFICANT , THE PERSON MENTIONED THAT NORMALLY THE AGE IS 18 YEARS BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T ABLE TO WORK HARD ENOUGH AT THE AGE OF 16 AS THEY ARE BUSY WITH THEIR STUDIES ETC , WHEREAS I DEVOTED TIME TO MY STUDIES AS WELL AS PILOT STUDIES AND ACHIEVED THIS FEAT. NO REGULATION WAS BENT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag737 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC) — Ag737 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The question is not whether you worked hard (I'm sure you did) or whether it's impressive to get a pilot license at a young age (it is). But in the larger scheme of things, this is insignificant. A pilot could get a license tomorrow and get a license a day younger and your article would have to read "Aditya Goel is an Indian pilot who was the youngest to get a license for a period of a few months in 2012 and 2013". Wikipedia is interested in records that are historically significant or that generated signifcant and sustained coverage in multiple sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Pichpich (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked a little deeper and it's clear that the Asia Book of Records and the India Book of Records is the same website which probably posts records for a fee and it's such a small amateurish operation that they clearly don't have the resources they would need to validate that record in a country as large as India (and with a notoriously disorganized bureaucracy). So I'm not even convinced that you hold that record. Pichpich (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for this individual indicates that he has littered the social media with postings about his accomplishment, but that no news coverage was generated for the feat. Impressive? Yes. Notable. No. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of true notability; references are remarkably non-reliable. Not enough there to meet WP:GNG. If there was independent media coverage of this I'd be swayed, but all I see is self-generated content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy G11 may be appropriate as a self-generated promotional article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitbucket[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: You've got almost all facts wrong. Bitbucket isn't "software", it's a website. The article couldn't have been created by Atlassian, it was created^[2] before Bitbucket was even bought^[3] by Atlassian. And it is the subject of plenty of independent articles: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. -- intgr [talk] 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia's own comparison of the popularity of project hosting sites shows that Bitbucket is three times more popular than Codeplex, based on the number of projects it hosts, and about a third as popular as SourceForge. Neither the articles about Codeplex nor about SourceForge are being considered for deletion. Also, speaking as a professional software developer, Bitbucket is well known amongst developers. It is one of the big four sites: GitHub, SourceForge, Google Code and Bitbucket, although I would say it is the least popular of the four. It is notable, regardless of who wrote the article. TeWaitere (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep, numerous articles about it from reputable third party sources on top of the ones mentioned above, and as usual it took longer for me to copy-and-paste the URLs and titles than it did for me to find them:

DDoS attack against Bitbucket darkens Amazon cloud
Atlassian snatches Bitbucket
Bitbucket's Amazon DDoS - what went wrong
Can Bitbucket Challenge GitHub with Free Repositories?
Bitbucket - Kostenloses Code-Hosting für Projekte

Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 09:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | express _ 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clover (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FishEye (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-A well sourced article. The argument seems notable.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion about the notability, but you're mistaken about "well sourced" -- most references link to Atlassian (primary sources) except for one link, which is a forum link. None of them are reliable sources. -- intgr [talk] 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo (software)[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Subject has not been featured in multiple mainstream news sources, and the article presents no inherent notability. I've noticed a thread that almost all these articles were created by Atlassian, who seems to be spamming Wikipedia for promotional reasons. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confluence (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another spammy, promotional, non-notable software article. This software product does not meet our general notability guideline. Almost all sources are the company's website. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nominator is on a deletion spree, see User talk:CitizenNeutral#Aggressive Deletions vol2. Already survived earlier deletion discussion with 100% keep votes last year, this nomination doesn't address why that decision should be overturned. -- intgr [talk] 23:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. Bad faith and/or misguided nomination. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 23:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JIRA[edit]

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

Spammy, promotional, non-notable software article. Does not meet our general notability guideline. Almost all sources are the company's website. Promotional gems include: "Starting with JIRA 4, a 10-user starter license costs $10 with all proceeds benefiting Room to Read." Likely created by someone with a COI. Delete. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very notable software. Rewrite is in order to remove promotional material. Sorry that I don't have time to find secondary sources, but they are highly regarded in the software development community, mot notably in the agile community. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Notable software used in many projects, article needs a rewrite, not deletion -VJ (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article needs to be rewritten to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, but should not be deleted -Alex Rosenberg (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scouting_in_South_West_England#Dorset_Scout_County. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Scout County[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 19:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't warrant an article since it fails both WP:CLUB and WP:NOTDIR. I can't find to be any hits for this sub-national organisation, save this local newspaper article [12] documenting scouting demographics. The Dorset Scout County is already mentioned in Scouting in South West England#Dorset Scout County. This page is merely a copypaste of that section with an unsourced list of scouting groups in the county. Funny ^Pika! 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several years ago there were articles about all the Scout Counties and Areas of the Scout Association in the UK. The one for Dorset was Dorset Scout County (The Scout Association), It was earlier called Scouting in Dorset. Both are now redirects to Scouting in South West England. That is one of a set of articles that discuss Scouting in the administrative regions of the UK. It is not only about the Scout Association. This new County article can be deleted or made yet another redirect to Scouting in South West England. Redirect is probably best, so anyone else who thinks a Scout County article for Dorset is a good idea may get the message. I add that long ago there was consensus in a number of places that lists of Scout Groups, Troops, Crews, packs, etc. were not appropriate on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is essentially a list article, but it is a list of places where there are scout troops, not a list of articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 4 March 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) 16:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iododiphenhydramine[edit]

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

"Iododiphenhydramine" is an ambiguous name which could refer to any of several chemical compounds. The chemical name "iododiphenhydramine" does not appear in any major chemical database that I have searched. A search of medical databases turns up no drug with this name making it extremely dubious that it is marketed as an antihistamine in African countries as claimed (or anywhere else). A web search turns up no reliable sources (hits are mostly forum spam). In short, the content is vague, dubious, non-notable, unreferenced, and unverifiable. ChemNerd (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per ChemNerd: no reliable sources found, very unlikely that it is a widely used in Africa as claimed. Jarkeld.alt (Talk) 22:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - I consider myself an extreme inclusionist when it comes to chemicals, but I find absolutely no mention of this compound in the literature (using SciFinder). I would support a merge to the diphenhydramine article or the creation of a halogenated diphenhydramine article, but as it stands, there aren't many sources to go on. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 21:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ng Sai Yung[edit]

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

Amateur footballer who has made a couple of appearances for a team which plays at the 16th level of the English football league system so fails WP:NFOOTY by an absolute mile. Chinese coverage included in the article does not seem significant or in-depth (judging from Google translated versions of articles) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NFOOTBALL. I think he passes WP:GNG, with coverage in Canada [13] and Hong Kong [14], it's just that both these articles only cover his participation in the FA Cup Final rematch. He definitely fails NFOOTBALL since, according to his profile on the team website [15], he hasn't even played a Surrey South Eastern Combination Junior Division Four league match. It looks like he's plays as the team's backup goalkeeper [16]. Funny ^Pika! 23:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a footballer he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and his only claim for notability fails WP:BLP1E. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~He played in the 1872 FA cup? I don't think so.~~ Ah, the rematch. Oh well, fails GNG anyway. Dengero (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 晴報, 二字頭, and Ming Pao (see cited sources in article) are all mainstream publications in Hong Kong. I've read through the sources and I can confirm they all contain in-depth biographical information about Ng Sai Yung. (In case you wonder - 二字頭 is a primarily a paper publication, who have moved to Facebook as their primary online presence.) Given the presence of three in-depth stories covering the subject in mainstream media, the "significant coverage in reliable sources" criterion of WP:GNG is satisfied, and therefore the article should be kept independently of Ng's standing in the football world. Deryck C. 00:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about WP:BLP1E? Mentoz86 (talk) 06:15, 5 March 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) 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Graham[edit]

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

Non-notable biography. Graham is the daughter of a US Senator (but WP:NOTINHERITED), and has considered, but never actually undertaken, a political campaign of her own. She currently works as minor school district official. If she chooses to run, she may become notable (or perhaps, just become a footnote in the article about the particular election in which she participates). If she wins a set in the US House, she will be presumed notable. But until then, WP:TOOSOON. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete A clear failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hasn't yet done anything notable in her own right. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and the special guideline for Politicians. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have shown up, so notability has been shown. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natricia Bernard[edit]

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

Possibly a prod wouldn't suit because the article's major editor is the own article's subject, it would be contested without reason. The problem is not that the article is an autobiography, but the case here is the notability, this choreographer even though she has toured with artists such as Gossip (band), Arctic Monkeys, Nelly^{unclear to which Nelly}, among others, one may know that notability isn't inherit, and thus even if she has toured with notable singers, it may not constitute the fact that she is solely notable, if she has contributed to any choreography which in fact became notable, or if she has enough media coverage, which she has not, the article should remain. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is just about enough to show notability, e.g. http://popsop.com/51154 . An anon editor has been removing sources, but I have just put them back (after the nomination started). – Fayenatic London 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Daily Star, Daily Record, plus work with notable artists. squibix (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was KEEP non-admin closureconditional on the improvements suggested here being undertaken. Bold move to List of Game of the Year awards. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game of the Year[edit]

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

I believe this article fails WP:NOT#DIR as well as trying to conflate too many "game of the year" type ideas just to document them.

If we use films as the counter example, there are as many (if not more) sources that provide awards including Film of the Year but these include both sources like the Oscars and BAFTAs and Golden Globes (highly respected awards), and simply a notable reviewer's (like Roger Ebert)'s top films. We would track both in individual films, but the only ones that document the winners year by year on a single page are the articles on the awards themselves (eg Academy Award for Best Picture). The non-award type mentions do not have such articles.

The same would be true for video games. There's about 6-8 awards listed that are truely notable awards (eg BAFTA's VG, Spike VGA, etc.) and the rest are picked from gaming sites and user polls. As with films, we would document both on individual game articles, but the only ones that should be documented in the present manner should be the notable awards. If the Game of the Year aspect is important for a gaming journalism website (I don't believe this ever is) these can be listed on the website's page, ala what is done for Roger Ebert and his top film per year.

Moreso, the problem of making a mass page like this is that if we presume this would be kept, within a few years it would be far too long. Further, it conflates video and board games (the two board game lists are those that can be put onto separate pages); and the inclusion of user polls leaves much to be desired.

I don't see a way this page can be saved (redone, or merged or whatever) where the key information is not already repeated on appropriate pages. MASEM (t) 14:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the end of the day this article is really just defining the expression "Game of the Year." The fact that many publications and groups award the "Game of the Year" award (and the extensive listing of them) does not change that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#DIR is irrelevant because that is directed at "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." This is more like a dab page for the general concept, assisting readers in either finding a particular award or browsing a list of them. The equivalent for movies would be Film awards. Moreover, the page has over two hundred sources and so represents a lot of work. To casually delete this would be contrary to editing policy and be quite disruptive. Warden (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#DIR is not a fully inclusive list of what is not appropriate as a directory - it provides only certain examples, so it does still apply here. A list of video game awards like Film awards would be appropriate, but like that page , it would only list the awards, and would not be limited to GotY-type ones. The argument about # of sources and effort is an argument to avoid. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:NOT#DIR is not a catch-all excuse to delete any list that you don't happen to like. A directory is a compendium of phone numbers, addresses and the like and what is meant by that policy is that we're not a phone book, yellow-pages or commercial index of businesses or people. That's mainly style-guide advice because we do, of course, have many lists of people, businesses and other things which people want to look up. We also have numerous lists of awards — so many that we have a category for them. The only issue here is getting the material well-organised and that's not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NOT#DIR is a catch-all (all of WP:NOT technically is - just that the farther a case is from one that is exactly listed, the less likely you'll get consensus on it); it doesn't mean all directors are necessarily not allowed and certain cases are explicitly spelled out, but when and where is determined by consensus (read: AFD). And I'm not saying that individual pages - like the Spike Video Game Awards - are bad, simply that this page that groups these all together is not appropriate - I have yet to find an equivalent one that does this for films, books, and other published media. We definitely should be listing the winners on the individual award pages for the notable awards, which I know we do already, just not here. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR lists 7 specific cases such as sales catalogs but this page doesn't resemble any of them. We have plenty of lists and categories for other types of media including film awards, book awards, media awards, &c. The claim that we don't cover such material is therefore false. Warden (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And those aren't the only 7 specific cases of NOT#DIR that can be considered - just that you have to be able to justify why a new case (like this one) doesn't meet the general advice of NOT#DIR. Again, I'm not says awards in general are a problems (notable ones should of course be listed on those pages, and mentioned on games that won them), it is this grouping the multiple of different ones together from an awkward array of sources that makes this a problem against NOT#DIR. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on condition of changes. - It seems to be a valuable information source, but has problems. I think the following changes should be made and the AfD issue revisited in light of the changes or lack of these changes:

1. Rename to Lists of Game of the Year awards or List of games receiving Game of the Year awards.
2. For the "Video games – Critic and editor awards (Game of the Year)" section, create a "Critic and Editor" column in each table and then put all the tables into one connected table. By allowing multiple Critic and Editor listed for a single entry, that will shrink the long article. Also, readers of the list are no so interested in who gave the award. Rather, they first are interested in the "Game", then the Year, then interested in which Game of the Year awards it received. After all, the article is called "Game" of the "Year". The other sections can be similarly changed so that the page only has five tables.
3. Create a Notes column for each table. Each entry needs to be sourced and the Notes column is where that reference can be placed.
4. The references used need to be independent of the organization giving the award and need to be published by a reliable source. This will help focus the article.
5 Selection criteria - The lack of selection criteria is where this article fails:

Who: If I create a website and list my Game of the Year awards, will my website be listed in this Wikipedia article? That certainly would help publicize my website! Should this list be limited to awards from publications that are printed with ink on paper on a regular or periodic schedule? We could have separate Lists of Game of the Year awards from print publications and Lists of Game of the Year awards from websites to have better control over the website entries.
When: Should the Lists of Game of the Year awards entries be from the very first game invented (e.g., by cavemen) or is it limited to games that came into existence after the 19th century? Is it limited to awards focused on the first year a game is published?
What: What about board games like mancala or is it awards for only electronic games? Should new versions of Kick the Can game or other play type game that receive Game of the Year awards be included?
Where: Should the Lists of Game of the Year awards entries be from any Game of the Year award given anywhere in the world? Should the list be limited to awards list originally published in the English language?

I'm skeptical that a selection criteria can be made that is unambiguous and objective. However, I'm willing to give editors a chance to address the above issues to then judge at AfD in two months from the close of this AfD as to whether the product resulting from those changes should be kept or deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seeing what magazines gave games that title, is notable. Perhaps list just the important game review sites/magazines together, and have just the category of year and name of the game. Be easier to compare things. See who voted for the same ones at times, and who said something else. If people were curious about the game they could click a link to it and see its genre, Platform(s) released on, and what company developed it, etc. Dream Focus 14:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split: What should be at this title is the board game "Game of the Year". Each of the notable lists should get its own article. The non-notable lists should be deleted. There's no need to group these lists together; the article is very large and the entries don't have much in common with each other p b p 17:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entries have a lot in common with each other because, in many cases, they are the same. The page might be efficiently reduced in size by listing the winners for a given year and the source. For example, in 2007 Bioshock was game of the year for BAFTA, Game Informer, Spike, X-Play, &c. Super Mario Galaxy was game of the year for IGN, Edge, GameSpot, &c. If we get rid of all the developer and platform stuff then we could perhaps achieve a much tighter table. Warden (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are often the same within the same year (given how GOTY works). This strongly suggests that we should be putting summary tables like this in our articles of the form 2012 in video gaming (we don't currently) as cross-categorizing the GOTY for a specific year there, as well as listing the GOTY on the page either discussing the awards specifically (ala Spike Video Game Awards) or the page describing the journalistic site (eg IGN, Game Informer), as another means of cross-categorization to see what those source chose over time. But this current article is an extreme odd and awkward means of cross comparison. It is critical to point out that video games do not really have a strong set of key award metrics (unlike films) such that many games latch onto GOTY award mentions from questionable sites, some which are listed here, hence why comparing them in this fashion is like trying to equate the content of the New York Times and the National Inquirer within the same article. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... rename as a list article and weed ruthlessly - The topic is a notable one. The concept of the "Game of the Year" is an important one in gaming culture and it is one that is shared across many video game journalism sources. Frankly I'd be surprised if there was no coverage of the concept as a stand-alone topic. But with that said, I sympathize strongly with the nom's points here. The length of lists like this alone make them hard to navigate and when large sections of them are unsupported by refs they set a poor tone and become a magnet for unsourceable trivia and cruft. I do agree that the board games section should be split off and perhaps we could add php's linked award to this list as well. The number of board game GotYs are small enough that a list of all List of board game Games of the Year would be well within the bounds of WP:SIZESPLIT. I also think that the reader polls should be either split or deleted. I fully support Uzma Gamal's points #1, 2, and 3, and I largely agree with point #5 as well. Point 4 is the equivalent of requiring notability for the award itself, though, and since this is not a list of awards, but rather a list of GotY-winning games, I think that would change the article's scope. -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the main topic of the article is who is giving the award, the reliable source needs to be independent of the organization giving the award. If the main topic of the article is what game receives the award, then the reliable source needs to be independent of the game itself. I think the main topic is, or at least should be, the game itself since that is what readers will first be interested in and there is overlap in a game receiving multiple GoY awards whereas there is no overlap between one GoY award to the next or one GoY organization to the next. If the main topic of the article is what game receives the award, so long as the organization giving the award is independent of the game itself, then the writings (e.g. awards list) of the organization giving the award is OK for use in the article. Since there is no one dominate Game of the Year awards organization (unlike the academy awards for films, for example), yes, we need a list like this. If three different organizations give one game a Game of the Year award, that would be valuable to know. Wikipedia's Game of the Year award list likely would be the only place people could find such information. That's all fine, but if this list is not improved by AfD2, I agree with the nom that there would be no reason to not delete it to start anew. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good explanation of the sourcing requirements in my view. I fully agree with that. -Thibbs (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it and starting a new is ridiculous. No one ever bothers starting a new once an article is deleted. Many people won't bother editing an article that might end up being deleted, they waiting until the AFD closes. And the point of an AFD is to determine if the subject of the article is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, not to judge it in its current state. Dream Focus 14:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's not entirely true, Dream. GNG is hardly the only relevant policy at work in this or many other AfDs. NOT is perhaps even more relevant, since NOT is policy and GNG is a guideline p b p 16:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the GNG, I mentioned Wikipedia:Notability, which says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." If the article is notable, then there is no reason to delete it and hope someone recreates it differently, just let it be, and work with what you have. Dream Focus 00:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a topic to have a standalone article. Per WP:N, other policies may make a standalone article on a topic inappropriate. That is what I'm arguing (I'd have no doubt that one might be able to create such an article on the concept of a 'game of the year' on notability alone, but that seems unnecessary). Notability has nothing to do with my reasons to delete. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 1 March 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) 16:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global eProcure[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. Claims to fame include repeated listing in the top 100 list of Supply & Demand Chain Executive. While this source verifies at least one such listing, the magazine's website is in terrible shape and other appearances on the list cannot be verified. However, even if verified, the article listing provides only a cursory listing, not the in-depth coverage needed to build an article. A survey of the article's history will show a history ripe with COI editing. The article as written today is overtly promotional, and with insufficient sources with which to rewrite the article, the spam cannot be sufficiently mitigated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Current text is unambiguous advertising and too meaningless to improve by editing: ....leading procurement technology, procurement outsourcing and procurement consulting company dedicated to delivering savings. Top 100 lists do not constitute a minimal claim of importance, much less enduring significance. Note also five prior speedy deletions and recreations as spam. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two Google News searches, "Global EProcure Subhash Makhija" and "Global eProcure" both provided several original and republished press releases, with non-press releases here, here, here, here, here, here and here (minor mentions). In this search, even going as far as the fifth and sixth pages don't provide anything substantial and only promotional press releases. I found another Indian news article here that mentions them a little more. Searches with the other two key people (Neha Shah and Jagadish Turimella) provided press releases and a search with Roopa Makhija provided an article the subject wrote. A Google Books search provided some results (mostly Cram101, which republishes Wikipedia content) in the first three pages, some of the sources are minor mentions as well, directories or don't provide the relevant preview. The sdcexec.com website provided several results which seem useful but are overshadowed by the plethora of press releases. A search at thefreelibrary.com revealed press releases and another minor mention, nothing useful. As for the acquisition, news searches found mostly press releases and one tampabay.com article. I usually lean towards delete when the press releases outweigh the significant and third-party links and several of these reliable sources only briefly mention them. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laudrup SA1[edit]

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

An unpublished book by a little known author, with no evidence whatever of notability. There is a "reference" which simply says "History Press", which is the name of the publisher, and there is a link to Amazon, which tells us "This title has not yet been released", and nothing else remotely resembling a source is given. A PROD was removed by the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as not-quite-coherent WP:CRYSTAL promotional text. I cannot determine, either from the article or web hits, what this yet-to-be-published work is even going to be about. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonia Orji[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced biography of a living person. References are links to Orji's About.me, Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. The only claim of notability is a nomination for a Shorty Award but since anyone with a Twitter account can nominate anyone else, this nomination is meaningless. Note that if this isn't deleted, it will need to be cleaned up since it's clearly biased and in part copy-pasted from [17]. Pichpich (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. None at all that I could find, actually. Having lots of Twitter followers is, in itself, not a persuasive claim to notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete After five pages of nothing but social networking links I have to conclude that notability isn't going to be established. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I waded through the top 100/10,800 Google hits for the exact name and found nothing that even remotely counts towards GNG. Definitely a leading Nigerian Twitter-er, but not the subject of multiple examples of substantial independently-published coverage, as nearly as I can determine. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Tom harrison, CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midsummer Night's Dream: Act I[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no reason given. So I'm AFDing the article with these reasons from the PROD. Seams to be an essay. Delete this page and merge any credible content into Midsummers Night Dream article. GAtechnical (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these new users. You prod they remove, you AFD, they speedy. Just think before creating the article! So I better Withdraw this since it's been deleted. GAtechnical (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack King (author)[edit]

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

Only one source, which was placed only after trying to PROD. There is no claim of notability. There is no notability that can be determined as per specific and general notability guidelines. Cerejota (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the one cited Publishers Weekly review, I can't see any coverage. No awards, shortage of reviews, no general press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's nothing out there other than the PW source, at least nothing that we can use to show notability. He seems to have largely flown under the radar as far as RS go.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Melanie Amaro. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truly (album)[edit]

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

According to Wal-mart the album is supposedly due March 31 (see here) but the reference actually says December 31, 2013. Seems highly unlikely that an album would be listed for sale so much before its release date and evidently the information available about the album is limited. Not notable per WP:NALBUMS. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Melanie Amaro. Merging seems the obvious outcome here until there is more to be written about the album. It should be considered more often before bringing articles to AfD. --Michig (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to Truly (album) I don't understand why there is so much need for all this controversy over Melanie Amaro's debut album? If the album is not going to be released in stores till the end of the year then change the date on the page to December 31, 2013 like it says in it's sources. There should be no big deal and argument over this when the sources do indicate that the album will be released. It's not like someone is trying to copyright anything and putting false information or adding article sources that has been reported as spam filters. Just leave it alone! I really don't see any problems here if all that were the case then the article should be deleted but it's not the case!??! User talk:Welcometothenewmillenium 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_characters#Philip_Swift. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Swift[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. atnair (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. There are a lot of sentences in it, such as, "The character was introduced to replace Orlando Bloom and his character Will Turner". Judging by the cover it was probably true and since this is a film, it's there for open to interpretations. My only disagreement with that is that being that I don't plan on watching it, I can't trust it since there aren't any links to a source (News Paper, Book, trusted internet site ect...).
Question why doesn't this meet notability guidelines? I haven't seen the film in question but it's not obvious to me that a major character in a major film wouldn't be notable. Could the nominator (or someone) explain which notability guidelines are relevant and why this character does not meet them? 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment dia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence Notability --atnair (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides since the character is not known beyond this film. It generally takes multiple media appearances (increasing the likelihood of coverage) and/or strong claim to fame (like Scarface's Tony Montana) to have a stand-alone article. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine with redirecting to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been moved from Phillip Swift (Pirates of the Caribbean) to Philip Swift. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. It fails general notability guidelines: he hasn't become an iconic character or one with life outside the franchise; the films haven't been the subject of serious critical study; there isn't substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The article also probably fails WP:NOTPLOT because there's little analysis, and none of it referenced, while most of it is plot summary. He's already mentioned in the list of characters, so that would be the logical source of information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. Insufficient content for a standalone article, unlike many of the other characters, unlike other characters based on existing characters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web Bot[edit]

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

This is a scam created by two guys trying to bilk money from the gullible. It only achieved notice due to its supposed ties to the 2012 phenomenon; now that 2012 is over, it no longer needs to exist. Wikipedia is not a consumer advocate site, nor does it need to give free publicity to a scam Serendi ^pod ous 07:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main purpose of an encyclopedia page is to share knowledge, which does involve an element of promotion. However, just because the article is about a product does not necessarily mean that the page is an advert. That would depend on how the page is written. From what I can see, the page isn't promotional in that sense. It explains what it is without the use of peacock terms and provides reliable sources stating its significance. Funny ^Pika! 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article seems to meet WP:GNG, with this page from The Telegraph [18] and this from the Argentinian El Dia [19]. Also, the bot wasn't solely used for the 2012 phenomenon so I'm not sure why a merge was proposed. I think it's probably more suited to web crawler, if a merge is required. Funny ^Pika! 22:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bot is covered in reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. There seem to be conflicting concerns that it's either an advertisement or exists primarily as a consumer warning rather than an encyclopedic article, but bias can be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources used are pre-2012. The question is, does this thing still have notability post-2012? Serendi ^pod ous 18:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already pointed out, sufficient WP:RS exist to meet WP:GNG. Notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP), so a lack of "post-2012" sources does not affect the topic's inherent notability. (I did find one news story published this month which mentions the web bot project in a non-2012 context: [20]). I also agree with Colapeninsula's comment that WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems such as a failure to maintain WP:NPOV can be fixed through ordinary editing. --Mike Agricola (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep-the article seems covered with reliable sources.--Soroboro (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Piece discography. The history will remain in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamship[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Declined PROD. p b p 04:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder, fails WP:NSONG. Giant Snowman 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible A9 Speedy. No article for artist, and in no form of the article, from 2007 forward, can I find an assertion of "why its subject is important or significant". The ref added yesterday is only a passing mention of the song, and the google results provided in that edit summary also fail to demonstrate any apparent importance of the single. Per WP:NSONG, "a standalone article [for a song] is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I'm currently unable to find any evidence that the song meets any of the four criteria listed at WP:NSONG as being adequate basis for notability. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Merge as advocated by others below is also fine, though I don't see that there's even that much content to merge over. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sink ship - If only A9 existed years ago, this could possibly qualify. Unfortunately, being an ending theme to a notable series is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, where it is already mentioned. I agree with the previous commenters that it doesn't seem to be notable, but we don't have to delete it outright. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A9 or perhaps the merge stated above. I see no reason this article needs to exist on its own. Bensci54 (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, as there is already info about this soundtrack in this article we should at the very least redirect it if not a merge - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Piece discography, logical redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This should not have been relisted. There wasn't a single keep vote. p b p 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the relisting was to decide between the positions of merging or deletion. Even though there are no keep votes, that doesn't mean a consensus yet exists on what to do with the article (I have no opinion on what to do with it, by the way). Calathan (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Piece discography—there's little to merge, and absolutely no notability for a standalone article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Monsters[edit]

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

Relatively new band, fails WP:BAND. Independent sources are unreliable, and main page is at Facebook. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 01:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately, I am unable to include the links to the two Orange County Music Examiner articles as the "examiner dot com" prefix is on the WP spam blacklist. I can see that this might make one think the source is "unreliable" but, they are legitimate music/event reviews, easily found via Google. I have removed the Facebook link that was a reference. This band has had a handful of band members who are notable in the punk/ska scene pass through its ranks. I was unsure how to document this w/o removing focus from the band as an intact entity - and did not want to leave unfinished traces in the article history. After further research, the band's official web page is on Facebook (not entirely uncommon these days).

Isolde2000 (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, examiner.com is not a reliable source as indicated at WP:RSN (see archive). No significant coverage of the subject in non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Perhaps it is too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 12:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SOFT DELETE. Because of low community participation in this discussion treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 14:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Nixon[edit]

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

Subject appears to have helped found a small museum and not much else, article also quotes *very* heavily from the main source SimonLyall (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to establish notability (not with huge success at the moment). But if it is deleted, I would suggest a redirect to Mid-America All-Indian Center which mentions her briefly and gives a little info on her. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete regrettably does not seem to pass WP:GNG or any other measure I can find. --Paul McDonald (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy the page to anyone who wants to transwiki it. J04n(talk page) 01:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus cable[edit]

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

I initially proposed this article for deletion, but it was declined without an explanation. This topic is essentially a violation of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Source searches are only providing tangential coverage (e.g. [21], [22]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an encyclopedia entry Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and merge into Wikidictionary because is a definition of a technical term (see PCMAG's definition [23]). Toffanin (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary EnTerr (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, definition of technical term.--Staberinde (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as a definition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I could find no reliable sources for this beyond definitions. However, the topic clearly exists and is a real term, so a transwiki to Wiktionary is the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it looks like consensus was achieved. Why did this need to be relisted? -—Kvng 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and agree this looks like a done deal. a13ean (talk) 18:26, 4 March 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) 16:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturals Spa and Salons[edit]

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

Spammy article about a company that fails WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Even if this is a notable chain of consumer businesses (and a list of petty trade awards will not establish that), unambiguous advertising like this needs to be removed from history. Naturals uses the best quality products like Schwarzkopf , L'Oréal and Wella Training and Smart promotions are the main USP’s that make Naturals the most sought after and fastest growing beauty retail chain....Naturals also have a high end premium brand called Naturals lounge. Naturals Lounge comes with an array of premium services giving a delightful experience to the customers and bringing the finest skin experts and hair stylists to your service. Naturals Lounge is a premium format with a vision to be the ultimate destination salon for both men and women. It aims to offer its customers an unparalleled experience with exclusive services delivered with expertise. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The article is nothing but unambiguous advertisement. Must be deleted. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no news coverage except a single link from The Hindu. This type of chains of shops are there in every country and in many types of business. Notability not established.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per arguments above.Jethwarp (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utherverse Inc.[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable WP:CORP. The main function of this article seems to be for spam links in the external links section. I am One of Many (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By doing a simple google search I currently get 58,800 news results for the company.

Now considering the fact that you wildly delete relevant additions to articles because you think that adult related links are somehow invalid information and then, when challenged, you nominate the whole company article for deletion, let me extend a hand and educate you a little bit about Utherverse and it's virtual world - obviously you did not bother by yourself.

No, all your edits at that point were adding external links to articles to the "Red Light Center". Please read WP:SPAM.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Utherverse virtual world "Red Light Center" is currently home to more than 10 million people that created an account in it. At any given time more than 2000 people are online within their virtual home and live their life there - many of them disabled or so sick that they can't leave their home, or (god forbid) enjoy passionate encounters with other human beings in real life. Within this virtual world they can still dance, explore, make new friends and meet friends they've already made and enjoy time with them, yes even "that" kind of time if they wish.

You're probably sitting at home, comfortable at your computer before you leave the house to do your daily chores or do whatever you feel like. Well many people don't have that luxury anymore and therefore are home-bound, some even bed-bound.

The Red Light Center is not up for discussion here. It appears to be notable enough. Please WP:OFFTOPIC.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So before you go on one of your deletion sprees that you obviously enjoy - maybe consider the facts, educate yourself and get some perspective for the rest of the people out there. I added relevant links and last time I checked Wikipedia says Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing.

Please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I am One of Many, I am very passionate about Utherverse and it's Red Light Center, but I agree I got too personal and I apologize for it. JOKEREMPIRE (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are able to take a step back and take a look from these persons perspective. Thank you JOKEREMPIRE (talk) 10:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising: an internet networking company focusing on bringing together Web 2.0 technology, 3D virtual environments, and social situations. It was formed to enable the creation of large multi-player online communities.. The fact that anybody still says "Web 2.0" non-ironically might be a claim to notability, but probably not one of enduring significance. Given reference is to a press release of a routine financing announcement that does not establish enduring significance. Google News finds more press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 17:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Smerdis of Tlön. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete it is advertising. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Glass[edit]

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

No notability WP:PEOPLE. I did some Google searches and found no independent reliable sources. I am One of Many (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Two refs added for the Medal of Hionour Memorials, which might just about make him notable. No strong views. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very doubtful -- I would put him just below the level of notability myself. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - assuming the text is true, he's designed two major monuments; that makes him just barely notable enough for me. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think those two new references and links to articles in Wikipedia make him notable enough.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shokrollahi digraph[edit]

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

Freshly self-published original research - Altenmann >t 07:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Is there a speedy criterion for such things? The guy clearly misappropriated wikipedia as part of his personal webspace: he linked this wikipedia page from his website. - Altenmann >t 07:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a case of original research to me WP:OR and is thus disqualified from speedy deletion per reason 3 of WP:NOTCSD. We need to go through AfD. --Mark viking (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows 5 non-Wikipedia hits for this topic, all at Mr. Shokrollahi's web site. With no independent sources and indeed, no peer-reviewed publications, this is original research WP:OR and fails general notability guidelines WP:GNG. Thus the article should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- No evidence of notability. a13ean (talk) 18:31, 4 March 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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bigg[edit]

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

I previously speedily deleted this article under WP:CSD#A7; discussions with the article's creator lead me to feel that the issue is borderline enough that it should go through AfD. I still believe the article should be deleted. There is no coverage of the person outside of blogs and other SPS. The rapper has one album that charted, but only on the "Billboard R&B/Hip Hop Catalog Albums". That's a minor chart, and doesn't indicate any airplay whatsoever. The purpose of using charting as a substitute for GNG (see WP:BAND) is that there's a presumption that charting artists must have had some coverage somewhere, even if we can't find it. However, since this chart doesn't include airplay, there's no reason to just assume that coverage exists. Unless some evidence can be found (and I couldn't find any myself), I think this fails WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the article gets posted again and again then there is a good reason to keep it. Senor Taichi (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article hasn't been posted "again and again". It was posted twice. And even if you were right, that is in no way an indication the article should be kept. I've had people post hoax articles multiple times, biographies of themselves, etc. The question is whether or not the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article wouldn't be reposted if it wasn't notable. It must be a well-known subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Taichi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the most ridiculous argument against deletion ever made in the history of AFD. That's like saying "because he's been caught speeding 20 times, it must mean his allowed to speed". Continual re-creation does not mean that the subject meets Wikipedia's guidelines, it means someone a) has too much time on their hands, and b) has a bizarre sense of policy interpretation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree if an article is deleted again and again then there must be something wrong with it. No need to keep resubmitting it, which as Qwyrxian says is not a reason why the article should be kept. But if you continue to resubmit surely you have to ask questions of yourself instead of bulldozing the article on. GAtechnical (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, also because the two links on the page are primary sources. GAtechnical (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found a brief CMJ write-up [24], two Press-Register articles which discuss him and his role in a documentary [25][26], and an Allmusic link showing that two of his albums placed on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart [27], a step up from the catalog charts but still a notch below the main Billboard 200. Gong show 12:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—there may be some coverage, but nothing substantial to pass WP:GNG. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've looked at the sources that Gongshow found. The CMJ is about an album, not the person, and quite passing coverage. The other two sources appears to be blogs; but even if we were to consider those WP:RS, I'm not sure they establish notability--they basically note him as a crime victim (including the creation of a documentary on the crime that received only minimal screening). If, however, the article is kept on that basis, we'll need to 1) take those sources to WP:RSN to see if there's a community consensus that they are acceptable sources and, 2) rewrite the article to focus on the shooting, since that would apparently be what makes him notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 4 March 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) 16:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lorg[edit]

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

Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the name appears to be Jeff Iorg (currently a redirect), where I suggest this article be moved afterwords. [28] Golden Gate is a significant seminary system, and he is its president, passing WP:PROF C6. Ray^Talk 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I tried moving the page already, but I couldn't. This should have all been sorted out before the page was nominated for deletion, and I suggest WP:BEFORE has not been properly followed. In any case, it's a clear keep per WP:PROF. St Anselm (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more references, but the president of a large seminary is certainly notable - just as a university president would be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would argue that the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary is not a "major academic institution or major academic society". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that the lead describes it as "one the largest seminaries in the United States"...? St Anselm (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider a seminary to be an academic institution. Not sure what the consensus on that would be. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? This is a degree granting institution with 2000 students. It is accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the premier accrediting agency for this part of the country (the same agency that accredits the University of California). I don't know what your doubts about its status could be based on, and I won't speculate per WP:AGF.. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's an established convention that religious colleges are major institutions, see e.g. Friedman AfD or Rabinowitz AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep -- president of a major academic institution. Seminaries count in the same way specialized colleges for engineering, music, etc. count. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above arguments. Agricola44 (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - promotional. Deb (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD pertains to whether or not this individual is notable, not to the tone or content of the article. The discussion seems now to have narrowed to whether the president of a religious college (Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, in this case) is notable according to WP:PROF #6 ("...person has held a highest-level...academic post at a major academic institution...). Is your contention that this person is not notable per this description? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 4 March 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 per WP:SNOW - this is an obvious hoax. I note that the account which created the article has been blocked as a sockpuppet account. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Murray (RAAF)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER The references given make no mention of him. The link http://www.454-459squadrons.org.au/454members/murrayc.html is for a guy who served in WW2, not the person in the article Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - was nominated for deletion before - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher S Murray. Gbawden (talk) 07:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax. In addition to all the other fishy stuff, the article claims he joined the RAAF in 2008 and saw six months of combat in Afghanistan and Iran (?) after completing his studies. However, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service states "the only combat deployment of the RAAF's Hornets was as part of the Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq." Military history of Australia#New Millenium doesn't mention any other fighter deployments. Also, after pilot training, he couldn't have had time to amass a lot of experience/seniority, yet somehow he became a wing commander? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. IF any of it is true/verifiable it in any case falls foul of the prohibition against resumés. Roger (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if not a hoax (I doubt that this is the alleged subject), clearly fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's impossible to source any of that information. I originally endorsed a BLP PROD on that article, which was removed by the creator, and I then reached out to him on his talk page asking for more substantial sources than a twitter account or the website of the RAAF. No response. This is essentially an unsourced BLP at this point, assuming it's not a hoax, and since it's impossible to determine the existence of this person, it's also impossible to determine if he meets WP:SOLDIER or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Van Broeck[edit]

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

bio articles about non-notable people used as a vehicle for spam. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks promotional and likely COI, and no convincing case of notability is being made. -ELEKHH^T 01:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Elekhh: no case for notability Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:27, 6 March 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 Federated States of Micronesia–United States relations. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Federated States of Micronesia in Washington, D.C.[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. the only coverage i could find for this one was an ex employee being indicted for stealing passports. [29]. those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a listing of the building's address. WP is not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Federated States of Micronesia–United States relations. Neutrality^talk 08:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, the building itself is not notable, but the information should be incorporated into the article on the bilateral relationship. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 6 March 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 Skitszo. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are You Leaving?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. Non notable single. - Mr X 04:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - doesn't appear to warrant an individual article at this time (i.e., lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS). Gong show 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. Not yet notable. All relevant information on this song already exists over there. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 04:38, 6 March 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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwijet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD discussion back in 2007 was closed as no consensus. Today, the situation is quite clear: Kiwijet is a proposed company which never came into being, and as such I cannot find any reason why the article should be kept in an encyclopedia. The page content is pure WP:CRYSTAL: just a series of product announcements. Further, the subject fails WP:CORP: All references that can be found are either self-published press releases, or mere rephrasings of these press releases by other media. Hardly enough to speak of significant, independent coverage. FoxyOrange (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Scoop articles are press releases, the others aren't. It appears to have received reasonably significant coverage, and notability is not temporary. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Hawaiian717. Does it improve our coverage of New Zealand aviation to delete this verified information about a failed, but still notable venture? No, it doesn't. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. A non-existent company that has previously failed to provide any goods or services. The page survives on speculation and press release coverage. Funny ^Pika! 22:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly how is a failed proposed company notable? Additionally, neither Jetconnect or Qantas bother to mention it indicating it is most likely an orphan, again indicating a lack of sufficient notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Through passing the GNG. Notablity does not vanish when the proposal falls through. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 05:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG through coverage in multiple reliable sources; Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP and above. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 04:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - once was, so it will always be. Yet another notable corporate failure. Stalwart111 09:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say it's barely notable. Currently, there are only two useable sources on that page: TVNZ stating the proposal [30] and the New Zealand Herald discussing investment [31]. In all, this is actually a take on one event - the failed launch of an airline. As per WP:N, it doesn't really matter if it's notable if it fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Funny ^Pika! 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly true, but there are a couple of other usable sources like this (though also from TVNZ), this (though also from the NZ Herald), this from the Otaga Daily Times and this from Channel 9. Obviously the first two don't do much for notability because they are from the same sources as existing ones, but the ODT and 9 ones should be okay. I agree the scoop ones aren't worth much, but what's wrong with the Brisbane Times/Dominion Post one? Stalwart111 21:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem like routine announcements to me, like FoxyOrange mentioned in his nomination. There is no in-depth analysis of the company itself, just a rehash of PR and Weil's (CEO) quotes. They just go to prove that plans for the company existed, which does not necessarily make it notable. Would you care to comment on the WP:NOT issues? Funny ^Pika! 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I suppose my take is that NOTNEWS, to me, is about weeding out routine events that appear one day, make the news and then disappear never to be seen again. An encyclopaedia shouldn't cover every cat stuck in a tree or every car crash or every shooting (oh the dramas we've had with that one!). But I think we're talking here about more than a one-day story. It launched, it announced some plans, it withdrew those plans, it announced some new plans, withdrew those, changed some plans and then disappeared (or something). As one of the NZ Herald articles said, "...passengers will now have to wait to see if Kiwijet's Plan C becomes any more a reality than its aborted Plans A and B". The media covered what was an ongoing saga for a number of years including A, B and C. In my view, an emergency landing would be WP:NOTNEWS. The rise, up-and-down and eventual fall of an airline venture spanning several years is worth covering, I think. Stalwart111 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's not a one-day story but business proposals are pretty routine. If you look closely at the dates you can see some sources overlap and cover the same story. To take the shooting analogy - you could argue that a specific shooting itself isn't routine with a different perpetrator, victim, location and weapon used each time, but the way shootings are reported is routine enough. There's nothing to say that this proposed airline made any lasting impact for it to have been notable. Besides Wikipedia is also not a collection of product announcements and rumours, which basically is what this article is. If this were a film it would've been hammered already. Funny ^Pika! 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I have to say, I get where you're coming from and I think you and I are only marginally either side of the same very fine line. Announcements of new businesses happen every day and if this were one press conference where a couple of entrepreneurs announced something that was never heard of again then I'd be right where you are. What makes the difference for me is that they strung everyone along for so long with announcement after announcement and plan after plan to the point where journos started making jokes about it. That goes beyond routine news as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and for reference, we do have a Category:Unreleased films (some survive the hammer!) and, in fact, we also have Category:Proposed airlines. Stalwart111 07:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am bothered by the claims that this was either a "failed proposed company" or a "non-existent company". I see no reason to doubt that this company really existed, and the claims that it didn't exist IMO do more to discredit the !votes than advance the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood the context. If you look at the sources provided above you can see that this was a planned (i.e. proposed) airline (i.e. company), which no longer exists (i.e. failed or non-existent) [32]. Where I come from the term company can be used interchangeably with business, so the company (organisation) could have existed while the company (business) did not. Funny ^Pika! 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~This company never got off the ground.~~ This article has a photo of an ERJ 145 flying in Kiwijet livery. —rybec 08:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage this airline received was routine coverage of press releases, the fact that it never flew a flight is a good indication of it's lack of notability, maybe a one paragraph mention in an article on aviation in New Zealand. LGA _talk^edits 10:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Cottle[edit]

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

Fails all notability guidelines. samrolken (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 26. Snotbot t • c » 03:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Unable to find any independent, reliable sources for this person. - Mr X 04:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Move - With very minor reworking, this article could be an article about the I Love Comix Archive, which I think meets the notability criteria. Some of the external links already on the page show how it is referenced by numerous blogs. It's pretty easy to find references to the archive in blogs (ScoopWeb, Daily Ink, The Stripper's Guide) and it's also referenced in numerous wikipedia articles. It's used as a resource by other comic strip archives such as this Mandrake the Magician archive. I focus on comic books rather than comic strips so I don't have any strip reprint collections to check and see if it gets any credits in those, but that might be worth a look when deciding whether the archive itself is a notable topic. - Ixat totep (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of your three blog references 1) Is not a blog and is a Wikipedia mirror, 2) Doesn't mention the archive at all, someone in the blog's comments section mentions it... and 3) Doesn't cover the archive at all, just mentions it in passing. samrolken (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I spent about 5 minutes trying to find stuff before running off to work because someone brought the page to my attention. I did think I'd filtered out the Wikipedia clone, so that's embarrassing. But my point was the raise the rename possibility, which I've done. If I have a chance I'll try to look up better sources, but really my area of expertise is comic books and not comic strips. Ixat totep (talk) 05:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move - I'm astonished that this article was created around Steve Cottle instead of around the ilovecomix archive. The archive itself is clearly the more notable topic. I say rename/move the article.

wayland (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you help us establish the notability of the ilovecomix comic archive? Thanks. samrolken (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, there is this page at kickstarter [33] which shows over $8,000 pledged by 57 supporters achieved by March 9, 2011.

and there's a blog entry [34] which bemoans the loss of the ilovecomix archive when it temporarily went offline from its previous web address.

Another blog here [35] refers to the ilovecomix archive (at the previous address before the funding was achieved) in glowing terms.

A company calling itself "http://pediapress.com/" claims to sell "Wikipedia" books from "Wiki content". This appears, on the surface, to be a worrying development since it could mean someone might make money from articles we have written or contributed to in good faith. One of the books offered is on Google Books “American comic strips before 1918” for US$ 31.39. This "American Comic Strips Before 1918" book makes 6 references to the ilovecomix archive. Notable but worrying...

Forbidden Planet is the most famous comic book and sci-fi related shop in London, England and has been around for many years. They mention the ilovecomix archive on their blog [36]

"Grantbridge Street and Other Misadventures" is a very well liked blog for comic fans and mentions the ilovecomix archive, describing it as "absolutely cracking" [37]

wayland (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Inappropriate discussion of off-Wiki activity; borderline NPA/OUTING; please discuss the merits of the content, not the editors who created it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I discovered that the user who initiated this Articles for deletion (Afd) action, samrolken -- is actually a close personal friend of the subject of the article, Steve Cottle.

Mr. Cottle was interviewed extensively and the two of them have been friends for over 15 years. In fact, samrolken's only connection with Mr. Cottle is his personal friendship. samrolken apparently has no interest in comics and no appreciation of them as an artform.

Mr. Cottle and samrolken engaged in a text chat on Facebook on the evening of Feb. 25th, during which time samrolken decided to initiate the Afd and told his friend that he was going to see to it that it would be deleted and would be gone in seven days.

"You should not create or edit articles about ... your close friends. ... You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

Extensive interviewing of Mr. Cottle, as well as a detailed review of the chat transcipt confirm that not only was samrolken a close friend, but there was clearly antagonism during the chat, which timestamp records from Facebook and Wikipedia show that samrolken initiated the Afd while chatting with the subject.

"Wikipedia:Vandalism

"Abuse of tags

"Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd} ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Inasmuch as samrolken's sole nexus related to this article was his friendship with the subject, and the Conflict of Interest (CoI) is clearcut and blatant, yet hidden in this Afd page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle

a reasonable conclusion would be that this is simply an act of vandalism, which should be prohibited, rejected, and rapidly withdrawn.

Drhankh (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename - While the page is poorly done, Steve Cottle is indeed notable in the comic strip collecting and history community. Notability is defined by Wikipedia as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and specifically " The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". The peers in this case would be comic strip historians, a group that has not yet had anyone suggest this page for deletion. I don't know Steve myself (other than what I've read on his Wikipedia page), but I certainly do know the reputation of his archive - a wonderful source, and one that is indeed cited in current research. Certainly Steve doesn't have the importance of Bill Blackbeard or Allen Holtz, but to delete his article (or archives) by non-peers is like putting non-sports fans in charge of the sports articles. Sangorshop 00:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangorshop (talk • contribs)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drhankh (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) samrolken (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find reliable sources to meet GNG, open to WP:Heyman save. Insomesia (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising. He may possibly be notable, though the sources do not really seem adequate, but this article is so much devoted to advertising his services that it is radically unacceptable. a list of the comics he hosts on his site is improper promotional content. A list of the items he sends in response to donations is promotional content. A detailed reprint of the takedown notices he has been sent, while not exactly promotional, is nonetheless not encyclopedic content. I note the illustration is non-free content with a totally inadequate justification: to illustrate his work as collector. That's absurd--we use such strips to indicate better than words can do the work of the artist or creator, It serves no point as indicating the work of a collector or the operation of an archive. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as "clearly invalid fair use tag"; if someone challenges it, it will presumably have the usual discussion before it gets deleted.--DGG 21:48, 3 March 2013‎
Delete Keep AND Rename ilovecomix archive and add actual reliable sources and remove all current sources as NON RS. Per Andrew Lenahan below.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is currently written; per DGG - WP:NOTPROMOTION — Ched : ? 07:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, advertising, self-promotion, lack of reliable sources. It's an all-you-can-eat bad article buffet. Even if his site were notable (and, as far as I can tell based on the article, it isn't) that wouldn't make him notable anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extended and apparently irrelevant content by User:Drhankh...

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Retain Comments (not a vote)

Hello, Starblind, you wrote "advertising, self-promotion." Only three people who have commented here (in this Afd) actually either know Steve Cottle or about him. The others apparently only from this article. The three are samrolken, who initiated this Afd, myself, and Sangorshop. samrolken is a close personal friend of Steve Cottle. samrolken has no expertise or interest in comics. (Source, recent letter he posted and appended at dailydose, second source, interview of Steve Cottle, transcript kept). Sangorshop and I have expertise in comics. His expertise far exceeds mine. We have both known of Steve Cottle for years. Sangorshop and I have both been to Mr. Cottle's archive and understand its value. I have been acquainted with Sangorshop for several years, and what he says is extremely reliable. I conducted an extensive interview of Mr. Cottle plus have further written documentation. According to him, he did NOT write this article about him. He was not at all involved in the writing of it, nor was he contacted or interviewed for it. As far as I can ascertain, this is the truth. So there is no "self-promotion." As to "advertising" there's none of that, because the archive is not for the purpose of making money, and access is for free. I hope these comments are helpful. I do not claim it is the best article that could be written, but an article is better than no article. As to the notability issue, I will address that soon. -- Drhankh (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Comments (not a vote)

"Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Drhankh has been canvassed to this discussion. samrolken 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)"

"Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sangorshop) has been canvassed to this discussion. samrolken 17:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)"

According to my records, the first of these was inserted by samrolken about myself, Drhankh, the second about Sangorshop. As far as I can tell, when samrolken refers to "An editor" he is referring to himself in third-person. There is absolutely no merit to these charges.

As to Sangorshop, he was aware of the situation pertaining to the Steve Cottle, inasmuch as Sangorshop is a member of a Yahoo group called dailydose (that samrolken joined on March 2nd, the same date as his comments, and posted his message using his real name, and appended a copy of his private email letter that he'd sent to Mr. Cottle, a letter that Mr. Cottle and samrolken both told me had been sent). dailydose shares old newspaper comics strip scans.

Mr. Cottle had posted a message to Scanarama and dailydose about the situation regarding the article, its proposed deletion, and it being initiated by his friend, e.g., samrolken. Mr. Cottle did not ask for any help, just comments, but was clearly distressed. Even though I had read many of his comments over the years, had come across the Cottle article on Jan. 9th and downloaded a copy and found it interesting and useful, I was one of the last persons at Scanarama to post a comment, which wasn't to Mr. Cottle's original message, but to another member's, though I did respond to some of Mr. Cottle's questions in my reply message.

Sangorshop replied to a member at dailydose, who wanted to post a Keep comment here (this Afd) but didn't know how. Sangorshop did reply and explained briefly how to do it. I later responded as well and shared the instructions MrX gave me (at his Talk page).

Sangorshop never told anyone he was going to post any Keep comments, nor that he had done so afterwards. It was a complete surprise to me. I only discovered them here.

Mr. Cottle never asked me to help him. I reached out to him initially for further information, doing so with a short personal email letter. Something seemed clearly amiss, because it seemed odd to all of us (all the members from the two groups who bothered to comment) that a friend of Mr. Cottle's would propose to delete the article about him.

It also struck me as a likely conflict of interest for samrolken, as both an editor and a close personal friend of the subject of the article, to be the person who recommends it's deletion.

I asked some questions via email, Mr. Cottle requested use of a text chat program. Once I was convinced that it maintained a written transcript, I agreed to participate, and I interviewed him for several hours and developed a fully documented record, not to share here, but in case there are any questions about truthfulness and accuracy. Steve Cottle never canvassed or recruited me in the least. Rather, there seemed to be an injustice occurring, there didn't seem to be anyone else either able, available or willing, and as a long-standing Wikipedia editor (since 2009), as someone who knew his work, and his notability, felt that I was the only person available to attempt to rectify this injustice. So I simply assigned the task to myself. I am not working for anyone and am a free agent, but I hope my efforts help ensure both a correct outcome, and help other editors understand the pertinent issues. More dealing with notability soon. -- Drhankh (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Comments (not a vote)

In a nutshell, is Steve Cottle notable? His friend and the editor who initiated this Afd, has consistently said no, but he admits he's not interested in comics.

"No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition .... Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."

"Neutral sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written ..."

"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

 - Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for
   advice on where to look for sources.
 - Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors.
 - If the article is about a specialized field, use the
   {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract
   editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to
   reliable sources not available online."

Unfortunately, samrolken, the editor who initiated this Afd, hasn't paid attention to ALL the pertinent guidelines.

As far as I can tell, no attempt was made to contact the creator of the article, which I would have done.

No tags were added to seek out editors with any expertise, which was sorely needed here. If the editors, such as samrolken, have no expertise regarding a presumed leader is a specialized field, and no attempt is made to solicit expertise, you have 'editing' (to delete) by a committee with no expertise and not sufficient to render a proper judgment.

Steve Cottle has expertise in newspaper comics an comic strips and in the preservation of them.

Only Sangorshop and I have any expertise in these areas, of the editors involved so far. Sangorshop's comments are entirely correct. From my detailed interview of Mr. Cottle, his expertise was very well demonstrated. From samrolken's letter, he admits lacking any interest in comics, and has no expertise. More to follow. -- Drhankh (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Comments (not a vote)

Steve Cottle is notable for two basic interrelated ideas and achievements.

Newspaper comics, because of where they are published, tended to be discarded. There was no generalized attempt to save them and to make them available for future audiences. It is similiar to the situations of DuMont's TV shows being trashed, and the BBC wiping many early Doctor Who shows, making them something of just somewhat distant memories of the people who saw those shows.

A similar fate could have occurred to newspaper comics. Mr. Cottle developed a strong appreciation for them as a true art form, and newspaper comics do have a very devoted following, and all of them agree that it's an art form worth preserving.

Some libraries archived local newspapers onto microfilm and microfiche, and some newspapers, such as England's Daily Mirror, maintained records of the comics they locally published, such as Giles, which are reprinted in books.

And while libraries have the microfilm, these are not too accessible to the public at large.

There are some archives for some things, and there are some collectors with collections of certain strips, like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

But there are far too many strips that were orphaned. The strip ended, wasn't as widely circulated, and with the material being dated, was considered to no longer have any value and not worthwhile to the syndicate who created and marketed it, to bother with preservation.

Even if a company was interested in preservation of the original artwork and stories, over time companies cease to exist, change hands, office space changes, and the material tends to get discards. To them, it was a business. They didn't consider it their responsibility to save the material.

Steve Cottle got the big, brilliant idea, an idea that NO ONE else had, to collect and preserve all newspaper comics.

Not only did he get the idea, he started implementing it. More to come. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Comments (not a vote)

Steve Cottle persisted with his vision, remarkable and far ahead of anyone else, and gained followers, those who understood and appreciate his vision. They helped him gather and scan newspaper comic strips.

Steve Cottle developed one of the largest and best independent newspaper comics archive anywhere, ilovecomix, with a renowned reputation within the comics community. He is well-known, well- regarded, and well-appreciated.

Articles, like those here, for Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, are certainly good, but every article is based up memories and the original source material. There's always a first article on any subject.

Unfortunately, it's hard to write articles when the source material no longer exists and the people who remember it (from reading or watching it) are all dead.

What Steve Cottle is doing is preserving original source material, and that is invaluable to researchers, which I will shortly demonstrate. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Comments (not a vote)

Several years ago, I obtained a copy of a document written by Arthur Lortie. Mr. Lortie is an engineer who is also interested in science fiction, including comic books and comic strips. In particular, he is fan of Flash Gordon, and has written an article about this rather well-known SF character, who first appeared in a newspaper strip, and later in three movie serials, a TV series, a radio show, a movie and other media. From Mr. Lortie I discovered Connie, a newspaper comic strip that eventially delved into science fiction plotlines that were quite interesting.

From Mr. Lortie, I also learned that there was a science fiction comic strip named Chris Welkin, Planeteer, starting in the early 1950s. Mr. Lortie apparently didn't have much information it but was seeking more. The only images we had were from scans of three covers of Australian comic books that had apparently contained material reprinted from this U.S. strip.

I was really curious to what it was about, but I could find out very little information, including no article.

For the longest time, besides what Mr. Lortie had written, I could find only two sources that verified the strip had indeed existed, but not what it was about.

The article "Winterbotham, Russell (1904-1971)" pp.703-704 in The World Encyclopedia of Comics (Maurice Horn, ed., 1976), confirmed that established SF author R.R. Winterbotham had written the strip, but there was little description of it.

List of newspaper comic strips A-F - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia confirmed too that the strip had existed.

Chris Welkin, Planeteer (1952-1964) by Art Sansom and Russ Winterbotham

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspaper_comic_strips_A %E2%80%93F

But there was no article in Wikipedia.

What was the story line, what were the characters, what was the setting, where was it published?

All mysteries.

I could find out no futher information for a very long time.

Until one day when I got an email Steve Cottle had sent to a Yahoo group, mentioning his archive, telling us he'd moved it and how to access it, for free.

I reasoned that if anyone had information or scans of this strip, it would be Mr. Cottle.

And sure enough, he had them.

So for the very first time, I could actually see what the strip looked like, read it and see what it was about and truly appeciate the art form and the treasure that Mr. Cottle had rescued from oblivion, a resource that could be read and enjoyed, and also used for first hand research for anyone to write the first sorely missing Chris Welkin, Planeteer article.

Without that archive, writing anything more was virtually impossible.

Just recently, after interviewing Mr. Cottle, I was able to find and download scans of this strip in good quality for the years 1951-54.

With the strips in hand, I was able to learn that the correct title of the strip was "Chris Welkin, Planeteer" NOT "Chris Welkin - Planeteer" as the List of newspaper comic strips A-F had previously stated for a long time, and I corrected it.

I also learned that the strip was published by the NEA Service, which later become United Media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Media

That article could use updating.

I also saw that others were emulated Mr. Cottle, and when some years ago, only he had any material on Chris Welkin, Planeteer, sources have since branched out, information and scans are being shared. I found an article announcing the new strip, and a book by artist Art Sansom, mentioning working on the strip.

There are those of us in the comics community that truly appeciate this material and recognize it as an art form, well worth preserving.

Regarding the Steve Cottle article, it's part of a greater effort.

"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a

collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on

Wikipedia."

"This article is supported by the Comic strips work group."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Steve_Cottle

I have already pointed out how we need an article on Chris Welkin, Planeteer.

Elsewhere I wrote how I edited the Buster Crabbe article to add that he starred in a TV series, Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion, nowhere mentioned in the article.

I kept tabs on the article from time to tab, and others helped flesh out the Buster Crabbe article, and later someone wrote a Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion article.

Just because the Steve Cottle article has some flaws, doesn't mean non-experts should be deciding to discard it, as Sangershop pointed out.

Someone other than Mr. Cottle recognized his value and got the ball rolling.

Real experts like Sangershop and I could probably improve it a great deal, if we were sufficiently motivated, but this artificial deadline that soon expires is unnecessary. The Afd should be withdrawn.

I edited List of newspaper comic strips A-F; where is the footnote for Chris Welkin, Planeteer? Where do the years of publication come from? Are they accurate?

I don't know, but I do know that someone most likely in good faith, believed the information was accurate.

There as a mistake in the title of the strip, but the strip itself proved to be real.

Why is there this suspicion that the information presented here from people with true expertise is discounted rather than accepted. We do know what we tell you, and the rest of you don't know this subject area. Experts should be solicited.

Recently, samrolken had initiated an Afd on the article for Russell R. Winterbotham, author of the Welkin strip, an article that I had updated.

I added useful information. I didn't bother adding footnotes. I don't come to Wikipedia to read footnotes, or to add them. I haven't written articles, I read them, I learn things, and I get value out of my time. Occasionally I make use of the footnotes. If someone else is interested in writing articles or adding footnotes, they can do so.

I didn't write the Steve Cottle or Russell R. Winterbotham articles, but I do know about the subjects.

After several of us shared our thoughts on the Afd for Russell R. Winterbotham, samrolken voluntarily chose to withdraw it.

Not every subject is as well-documented as it should be, but then we don't all have an infinite amount of time. A flawed article is far superior to none,

I submit that doing likewise for this article would be in everyone's best interest. -- Drhankh (talk) 20:50, 4 March 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 Skitszo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

F16 (Colette Carr song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. The song charted at #48 on the EQ music blog (whatever that is), but is otherwise non-notable. The video plot summary is really not notable either. - Mr X 03:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's some self-run blog. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above - doesn't appear to warrant an individual article at this time (i.e., lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS). Gong show 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo or delete if it does not appear on the album—due to lack of secondary sources discussing the song. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's already a discography for her. Deb (talk) 14:04, 3 March 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 Skitszo. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex (Colette Carr song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skitszo. The song charted at #101 on the iTunes pop chart, but is otherwise non-notable. The video plot summary is really not notable either. - Mr X 04:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "iTunes pop chart" isn't a real chart. There's no citation for it. It could be completely made up. iTunes ranks songs in order of how they are bought. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to look a little deeper to see the irony in what I wrote. - Mr X 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whhops! I didn't get the joke... :( Still don't TBH. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. I got the joke! I think... Stalwart111 09:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above - doesn't appear to warrant an individual article at this time (i.e., lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS). Gong show 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo—no evidence of passing relevant notability guidelines (no substantial coverage, for example). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no evidence that the song will actually appear on Skitszo. The track listings for the first 3 EPs are out (and seen in the article), but the fourth and final one isn't yet. And I doubt it would appear, as it's an older song now. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not, we can redirect the link to the artist page, or delete altogether. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Stalwart111 02:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skitszo. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skitszo (Part 2)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about the EP. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 04:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo. I would have suggested a merge, but it seems all the relevant information (tracklist, release date, singles, reception) is already covered in the main Skitszo article. This release, one part of the overall collection, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS; plausible search term. Gong show 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo—seems like an unnecessary fork that does not meet WP:N. (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skitszo (Part 1)) —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skitszo. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skitszo (Part 1)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about the EP. Fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 04:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo. I would have suggested a merge, but it seems all the relevant information (tracklist, release date, singles, reception) is already covered in the main Skitszo article. This release, one part of the overall collection, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS; plausible search term. Gong show 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skitszo—seems like an unnecessary fork that does not meet WP:N. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability proved by sources (non-admin closure) Hue Sat Lum 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Havoc Pennington[edit]

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

This biographical article seems more suited for a LinkedIn profile than an encyclopedia. Interesting project work, but I cannot find any sort of coverage of consequence about the individual. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is basically a resume and needs intensive care, but the subject seems to be notable. Some sources: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. The sources indicate that he is notable for having made a mark in the software industry. - Mr X 04:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added the three refs I mentioned in my deprod of the article and cleaned up the formatting a bit. The four references consist of interviews at Free Software Magazine, two at OSNews and Slashdot. FSM and OSNews are reliable sources in the Linux world and Slashdot is a blog, but a widely read one. I've also added his GTK+ book, but don't know if this contributes to notability. It seems that there are multiple independent in-depth sources about the person and it's clear that he is known for more than one thing, so this isn't a single event, so he seems to pass general notability guidelines. The article still has a few problems in the form of unsourced statements, but these are matters of editing, rather than deletion. A notable person and surmountable problems with the article suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 04:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per MrX.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There does not seem to be a big consensus -- this article is likely to remain controversial -- but it's enough. User:Carolmoredc made especially good arguments. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The information could be merged into the article on the second presidential debate. It doesn't seem to meet WP:N currently as lasting effect was not there. Casprings (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 26. Snotbot t • c » 02:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The first AfD "discussion" was a pointless bickerfest of "Must-make-Romney-look-bad" vs. "Must-keep-Romney-from-looking-bad"; far more heat than light. Yes, the use of the term in various contexts was intended to make Romney look bad. Yes, there are reasonable arguments that Romney's use of the phrase was a meaningless verbal hiccup. So what? None of that has any bearing on whether or not the concept was/is notable independent of the debate. The only concern related to that foolishness is whether or not the article is biased (an irrelevant question here). The article is well-sourced, demonstrating a wide-spread use of the phrase which, in many cases, had no direct connection to the debates. Merging to the combined debates article presents an awkward or highly abbreviated side track to widespread use of the phrase that -- as I've said -- has little to no connection to the one debate it sprang from. This went through AfD, a merge discussion, a merge contrary to the discussion and here we are. Yeah, the memes and such were out of proportion to the phrase, harping on trivial details amid substantial disagreements. It's time to get over it. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current GNews search shows plenty of recent usages[43], suggesting the phrase has some lasting significance; I don't think a merger would be particularly helpful here. In addition, since we are talking keep vs. merge, and not about deletion, I am not sure this belongs at AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is clearly non-encyclopedic. Try United States presidential election debates, 2012 where this phrase is already mentioned, and in sufficient detail. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2012. I have given my rationale on the talk page. Simply put, while it does get "recent usage", it is largely in a one-off "this is kind of like that thing that one guy said that one time" and then nothing. Doubtful that usage will last very long either, since someone else will eventually say something that allows for similarly apt comparisons. This was a somewhat noteworthy moment in the debate, but there is no reason to believe it is noteworthy enough to support an article separate from the one on the debates.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A preponderance of reliable sources both old and new, plus an enduring meme in popular culture are in disagreement with your assessment. Insomesia (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are numerous, prominent sources with which to establish notability and the article has substantive content. There are several books that discuss the phrase, for example here, here and here. I also found 30 newspaper articles that have mentioned the phrase just this year (in the past 8 weeks), in the US, Europe and Asia. It seems that there is at least somewhat of a lasting effect. - Mr X 05:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those three book references are completely trivial. Quality over quantity is what counts. Being able to find minor mentions a few months later is not indicative of significant lasting notability independent of the debate/election/campaign.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. The gaffe was trivial too, but what makes it notable is the person who said it and the political climate at the time it was said (see War on women). It was an absolutely a foot-in-mouth moment and the media took notice, and is still taking notice. We can't reasonably expect volumes of scholarly analysis on those four hysterically unfortunate words. The fact that several books, newspapers, magazines, broadcast news organizations, blogs and social networks are still repeating it, more than establishes notability for our purposes. - Mr X 05:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial coverage of a trivial thing means it is of trivial worth and importance. In other words, not something that needs its own article in an encyclopedia. We aren't talking about a comment akin to "a series of tubes" as this was mostly just a comment during something that was actually important that people saw as a tad silly, like "you forgot Poland" or any of a host of mockworthy statements made by politicians, including actual gaffes such as the "57 states" slip-up.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I respect your view on the matter. I just don't think our inclusion policies are nearly as strict as we both might wish. This might be a better encyclopedia if we didn't have trivia, memes, neologisms, boy bands, and "in popular culture" content, but the established norm is that this type of content can be included, and it seems that this subject is significant enough to merit a separate article. - Mr X 19:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SummerPhD's reasoning. It is a bit silly, but nevertheless was a notable meme from this past election. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 06:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNN or Fox referred to it as one of the two most widely publicized reasons Romney looked bad and lost. I'm sure it will be around for a while. CarolMooreDC 16:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you find that source and provide it here? Vague allusions to something you recall from a source doesn't help. The sources I have seen talking about why Romney lost focus on actual meaningful shit, and make only passing references to a collection of comments, of which this comment is often just a footnote if it is mentioned at all.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have a transcript of which pundit said that where, a post-election search brought up the below; note all the ones just from last two weeks. Smells like WP:PERSISTENCE to me:

Daily Mail calls it one of the best quotes of the year; 12/9/12
Mirror pointing out as one of top 5 gaffes that lost him the election; 11/7/12
Jezebel] magazine (also reprinted at CounterPunch):This War on Women awakened a sleeping giant. Ladies were paying attention, as the 2012 election proved. Romney and his "binders full of women" was sent packing, and the 113th Congress now has 20 female Senators, the most it's had in all of U.S. history. 2/14/13
Jeopardy Hosts Binders full of women category (plus 3 other stories) 2/26/13
The Guardian: Does President Obama need some 'binders full of women'? 2/12//13
Rubio's water drink was tonight's "binders full of women" PolicyMic (WP:RS?) 2/12/13
Denver Post blog item, 2/21/13
RJI research team finds where Twitter, politics intersect, report on University of Missouri Journalism Institute studying showing While nationwide, the most tweeted about moment of the second presidential debate was a comment Mitt Romney made about "binders full of women," 2/26/13

Added above to talk page of article. Give me a few days and will add to article if no one else does. CarolMooreDC 19:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Internet meme was based on this and a multitude of news stories about this phrase from a historical presidential debate. Hmlarson (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Devil's Advocate. The topic does not have any relevance outside the second debate and can be more than adequately covered in that article. aprock (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Devil's Advocate.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No relevance outside of the debate. It is noteworthy, but only within discussion of the debate. AniMate 23:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per UHFAMFyadayaddaydadda. No context outside of the debate. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 23:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it was discussed just this afternoon on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, mentioning its recent use on Jeopardy as a category. Also reported here. - Mr X 23:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States presidential election debates, 2012; the question I believe here is WP:PERSISTENCE, more specifically has the subject received significant coverage from reliable sources which shows that the events notability is persistent. As have been showed by others, the subject is mentioned (often briefly or as a passing mention) recently, however it is my opinion that the subject has received little significant coverage since. As such, a summarization, merger, and redirected to the United States presidential election debates, 2012 article maybe in the best interest.

I am not doubting that the subject initially received significant coverage, my opinion is based on whether it continues to receive significant coverage.

One thing though that I am curious about is whether the subject has survived, and therefore remains notable, as a meme.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another poorly chosen phrase that has reached past the tipping point of notability. It has generated memes and parodies which if notable themselves could be included. Plenty of reliable sources dissecting how this reflects on Romney's stance on women issues in the election cycle. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TDA. Arzel (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as TDA said, WP:PERSISTENCE. This was a flash-in-the-pan phrase.—Zujine|talk 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event..." I think little green has some links for you (above). - SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually LGR supported redirect. The question is are those sources continued

significant coverage? A mention in a question by Jeopardy does not make continued significant coverage, nor does brief mention in reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability clearly established by sources. Everyking (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources establish notability. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced. Dimadick (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, well-sourced. It's taken on a life of its own, just like Bush Derangement Syndrome. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. More than is due is already in United States presidential election debates, 2012. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase became an event in its own right during the Presidential election. The article is also well-sourced. Kabirat (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the references currently on the article show plainly enough that it's notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Appears to pass GNG to me, and can continue to evolve into a better article - so if you're concerned about UNDUE, #sofixit ;) SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative comment: This discussion was closed as "keep" by a non-administrator, ShawnIsHere (talk · contribs). Per WP:NACD, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. ... Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator." I am undoing this closure because the outcome is not obvious. Sandstein 12:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps No Consensus is a better close than keep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the arguments, both for and against, I would assess this discussion as a consensus to keep. As such, I would have to disagree with you RCLC. Many of the delete/redirect arguments were based on false premises such as "the topic does not have any relevance outside the second debate" and "no last effect" both of which are demonstrably false based on the broad, continuing coverage and the use of the phase outside of the debate (for example, Jeopardy, and other the examples concretely referenced above). I think an uninvolved admin will need to determine if there is actually a consensus to keep, but obviously there is not a consensus to delete or redirect. - Mr X 19:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of shopping malls in Toronto. J04n(talk page) 12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Stockyards Shopping Centre[edit]

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

Article is about a future shopping centre and is written as an advertisement. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is under construction, and it will be notable enough for Wikipedia. Nothing is gained by deleting it. The solution to an article written like an advertisement is to re-write it (which I have done), not to delete it. Ground Zero | t 03:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article about a shopping center that does not even exist, and offers little material of lasting encyclopedic value. Its purpose seems mainly be to promote the developer and the tenants. The subject lacks notability at this point and the article fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:NOTDIR. Perhaps at some point in the future the subject will be notable, but as of now, I don't think that the article should be kept. - Mr X 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shopping malls in Toronto Although this topic has been the subject of some reliable, independent sources ([44], [45]), it does not serve as a notable subject other than that. In addition, I could not find any sources for some statements claimed in the article, which is odd. Regardless, until a later time when the topic becomes more notable in reliable sources, it should probably be redirected, as per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:NOTDIR and WP:ADVERT guidelines. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think that the WP:ADVERT criticism is still valid. I have edited it to address those concerns already. If you have continuing concerns about language that violates WP:ADVERT, please identify it on the article's talk page and I will address it. WP:ADVERT is good grounds for editing, not for deletion. Ground Zero | t 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taming of the Shrew Act 3[edit]

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

Although a good article on a single act from Taming of the Shrew might conceivably be written, this is not that article, and it appears to have little to no salvagable content. It gives a detailed summary of the Act and a great deal of original research concerning the author's interpretation of the play, followed by a large number of mostly irrelevant links (e.g. to general information about Shakespeare. Converted from G11 because it's obviously doesn't "serve only to promote an entity, person or product". Could not find evidence that it's a copyvio. May be an essay affiliated with some kind of class. Note: A similar article on another act has been PRODed at The Taming of the Shrew: Act I. Dcoetzee 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Are there other articles like this that are just about one act of a play that already has an article? Is this correct? –TC N7 JM 01:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a new article by another new user that is very similar: Midsummer Night's Dream: Act I. Both of these articles have the same incoherent structure (or lack thereof). I also found a very similar sandbox article on es.wiki but it looks like it was just deleted. I also found this: User:Alpha Group 1 and this: User:Alpha Group 1/sandbox. These articles seem as if they were copy pasted from other sources. - MrX 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for several phrases and Google turns up nothing. If it's copyvio it's from offline or deep web sources. I suspect what's going on is all these articles are written by young students as part of a misguided class assignment. Dcoetzee 04:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. The fact that somebody wrote a gigantic block of uncited text doesn't automatically mean copyvio. It might just mean the user isn't used to Wikipedia's standards yet, as also evident by doing other stuff like capitalizing full headers when they're not supposed to. I mean, the info isn't unsourced and it can probably be said that this isn't plagiarism, but I just don't think this article, per the notability guidline, needs to exist. How is one act of a play notable enough for an article? –TC N7 JM 08:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've already got The Taming of the Shrew. If there's content of value from this article that could go there, that's fine, but I see no benefit in articles about individual acts from plays. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:OR and WP:NOT#OR. The article would need to be completely rewritten to have any encyclopedic value. I also have a strong suspicion that most or all of the article was copied-pasted from other sources. It's also worth mentioning that other new editors have created very similar articles in the past couple of days. - Mr X 04:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my above comments and question. This doesn't need to exist, and we should try to get rid of all of the other recent one-act articles if we can. –TC N7 JM 04:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP: CSD A10. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and WP: CSD A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic - suspect this is some sort of college work. Arjayay (talk) 18:47, 4 March 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) 18:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoma Ito[edit]

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

No reliable sources establishing notability. Having searches 50 pages of google, I cannot find a single thing about him other than the games he has worked on. He appears to have no individual encyclopedic notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When googling his name and "final fantasy" in Japanese, there appears to be a ton of information relating to him. I would call this a borderline notoriety case. Someone fluent in Japanese would need to review the websites referring to him, parse out the relevant materials and update the page. Even then, I suspect this a borderline case. Kabirat (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did that same google search, but there was nothing on any non-wiki page in the first five pages of results that said anything more than "Ryoma Ito did the illustrations for this" or "Character design by Ryoma Ito"- nothing, in other words, beyond what you would find in the credits at the end of a game. --Pres N 00:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from his character design works. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the absence of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 01:56, 4 March 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) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lufttaxi Fluggesellschaft[edit]

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

Non-notable company, lacking any kind of references. Especially fails WP:CORP, as this corporate charter airline has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be anything out there other than directory-level coverage - not enough to establish WP:N. — daranz [ t ] 02:10, 2 March 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) 18:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bertie Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article about a young actor that had a very minor appearance in the last few minutes of a Harry Potter film. I can't see any proof he was in the BBC Horrible Histories series. As it is unsourced with only a very tenuous claim to notability, I don't think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTORS. Sionk (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, because this has already been redirected after an AfD discussion (unbeknownst to me when I made this nomination) it should probably be re-redirected and protected from re-creation. Sionk (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable movie, but the role is very, very, very small, not much more than an extra. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- still NN. May be notable one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 4 March 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) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supported Fostering Services[edit]

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

Regrettably I can find no substantive sources for this organisation. It feels as if it ought to have an article here, and the topic of Supported Fostering Services appears in search results, but the actual charitable trust that this article is written for only appears to be verified as existing, not as being notable. As it stands the article is about a non notable entity.

A valid outcome might be to broaden the article to deal with the concept rather than the charity itself, but this is unlikely to fly since all fostering is supported. I considered a redirect to or merge to Foster care but this is not appropriate either.

I'm forced to conclude that this charity is not yet notable, and thus an article is too soon. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mention in reliable sources. Probably created in good faith, but... WP:NOBLECAUSE. --Drm310 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete owing a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I'm unable to find any when carrying out a Google Books search and a Google News archive search. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a local charity operating in 2 or 3 London boroughs is hardly notable. The lack of response to the repeated relisting of this AFD also suggests that it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 4 March 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) 18:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rent Jungle[edit]

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

Non notable company with little coverage in reliable sources. Most sources are located in small Pittsburg publications. I'm open to the idea that this company may one day be notable, but I do not believe that is the case today. Very run of the mill company. Article was created by a COI / PR editor, who's only edited a few articles that he or she has a direct relationship with. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable - I'm not finding evidence of the kind of extensive coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:52, 4 March 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. J04n(talk page) 14:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pattabhishekam[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. It will be difficult to find significant online coverage for this 1999 movie. Since it was a hit movie as claimed here, here and here, I am sure, print sources should be available in Malayalam. Salih (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the liks given by Salih - the article desperatly need to be expanded beyond "X is Y", but WP:NOTCLEANUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 22:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern Insight[edit]

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

5-year-old notability tag; lets decide one way or another CorporateM (Talk) 00:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Recently the company gained media coverage on TechCrunch (see [46]); it seems that WMvare has acquired platform Log Insight from Pattern Insight. According to Spiros Xandros's home page (see [47], he is/was the CEO of Pattern Insight), the entire company Pattern Insight has been acquired by VMware and not only the platform Log Insight. Maybe merging the useful and relevant material into VMware is a preferable alternative to AfD. Toffanin (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources where the subject is the primary subject of the source to indicate subject is notable per WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP. There are a couple brief mentions, but if taken all together the sum of those mentions do not add up to be significant coverage IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The firm produces data mining software for source code and log data. The article makes no case for significant impact on technology, history, or culture. Google News finds only press releases and routine business notices. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:43, 6 March 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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 22:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 821[edit]

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

Not notable hicjacking.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...William 01:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does the search turn up only one, unreliable source that gives a poor account of the incident, but there's also another, unrelated incident in which a DL flight operating under the same flight number had to make an emergency landing regarding a lavatory issue, and most sources list it as an active flight number. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First, hijacking a plane is not an insignificant crime, it seems to me to meet notability. Nominating editor does not give any logic why we considers this particular hijacking to be non notable. Second, a search of news archives on Google [48] shows that the Associated Press reported the hijacking on the wire. The AP story was carried in newspapers as far away as Montreal and New Hampshire. This adds up to notability to me. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The newspaper sources seem reliable enough, but hijackings were fairly prevalent around that time (cf. List of Cuba – United States aircraft hijackings), and so an individual hijacking may be seen as less notable. Nevertheless, the article does expand past a blurb in the list, so we're probably better off keeping it. — daranz [ t ] 02:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt appear to be any evidence that this is particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable incident with WP:RS coverage. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:46, 5 March 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) Mdann52 (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kallman[edit]

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

Giant block of unsourced promotional text. Subject may be notable, but I didn't feel there was enough salvageable content to justify re-writing it to WP:NOT advert standards CorporateM (Talk) 01:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and radically trim to a referenced stub that can be rewritten from the neutral point of view. This is the proper approach to dealing with promotional articles on notable topics. Deletion isn't appropriate in this case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject does appear to be notable by most definitions. The text within the article was a copy-paste and I've taken the liberty of removing it. Please refer to the Wiki page history to see the removed content. Question: Should revisions be removed from the page history if they are copyright violations? AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Lighting And Sound Association[edit]

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

Advert which relies exclusively on sources from the org's own website. The page does not have enough salvageable material to be worth cleaning up. CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I couldn't find anything notable about the association after looking for a while. Also note that the only ref links that aren't from the PLASA site are dead. –TC N7 JM 02:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Street Blues[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Vaca tion 9 15:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing some mentions on blogs and social networking sites, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 02:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources of the subject to indicate that the band is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. If the subject receives significant coverage in the future, the article can always be recreated, but until then it is too soon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 2 March 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) 18:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Langlois[edit]

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

Non-notable person--the few hits for this person (there's a bunch of others with the same name and more internet presence than this guy) indicate that he is "le chroniqueur aux médias sociaux" which, I propose, is not a very notable position in this case. The article consists almost exclusively of trivia, and that he has written a few pieces for a few online zines doesn't make him notable as a journalist, for instance. This used to be a redirect to Simple Plan but that's too much credit too, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a "friend" of a moderately successful Canadian punk band is not a source of notability.TheBlueCanoe 01:46, 5 March 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. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berkery, Noyes & Co[edit]

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

Relentlessly promotional article created by a persistent COI editor. No real notability here, though the company has received some passing mentions in a variety of unreliable sources. Company has not been the subject of coverage in multiple publications. CitizenNeutral (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this fails the notability guidelines, and specifically lacks significant, reliable coverage in secondary sources. Had a look through WP:CORP and just can't see how this article's refs meet the guidelines. Went through most of the references. Many are a long way from secondary, and most do not deal with the subject of the WP-article directly. Most refs are about their clients, not Berkery themselves (most mention Berkery, Noyes in passing); For example 1, 2, 3, 4. The article itself is very badly written, and reads like a promotional piece - for example "Berkery Noyes has played a role in the consolidation of the publishing sector by facilitating the growth of large companies such as Reed Elsevier, McGraw-Hill, and The Thomson Corporation". I believe Jansen Noyes, Jr. himself may be notable, but this company is not. - Shudde ^talk 10:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject passes notability. Regarding references, we're talking about an investment bank here. When compared to similar investment bank entries, it holds up well. Berkery Noyes is mentioned on six other Wikipedia pages. Their reports are cited in strong reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. Though some sentences need to be revised (such as the one cited above), I would hardly say the entry is overly promotional in tone. It can be improved, but it should not be deleted. - Bernie44 (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In one of the links you provide the only reference to Berkery, Noyes & Co is "...sponsors poured more than $40 billion into the information industry during 2012, an 11% increase from 2011 according to a new report out from Berkery Noyes"[49], and the second [50] says "...according to new data from Berkery Noyes Investment Bankers,..." and then goes on to discuss some acquisition data on the software industry. In neither of those articles is the company itself the subject of the piece (at all - even for a sentence or paragraph). If those two examples are the best that can be found regarding secondary sources on this organisation then how can an encyclopaedic article about them possibly be written without original research? - Shudde ^talk 07:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, those two references are examples of Berkery Noyes reports being cited in reliable sources, not examples of profiles on the company. The material in this entry is all sourced. What would you consider to be original research? Regarding your hesitation about the company's coverage, it seems the entry and its references compare favorably to those of similarly sized investment banks (such as the ones in the list I linked to above). - Bernie44 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relying on non secondary sources means that for an article to be encyclopaedic you need OR - this is why secondary sources are a notability requirement. A reliable secondary source still hasn't been provided. Just because other investment banks have wiki-articles doesn't mean this one is notable. You're assuming that the other companies are notable (they may not be), and that even if they are this company is therefore notable (again not necessarily true). - Shudde ^talk 21:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a real company with enough of a profile in Bloomberg Businessweek and ancillary mentions in other publications to warrant a start WP article. There is some bootstrapping on their reports, and that's how reputations are made. For someone who has never heard of them, there should be something here.--Nixie9✉ 15:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep in mind that the editor who created this article is a persistent COI editor who does not disclose his COI. I understand we should assess his edits from a neutral perspective, but this editor has made it clear he doesn't want to abide by Wikipedia's rules of full disclosure. Regarding the article in question, the company has been mentioned in a variety of sources, but it is not the subject of multiple third party press mentions in reliable sources. A report being cited in a reliable source is a passing mention. If Joe Blow from down the street is interviewed in the New York Times for his perspective on a traffic accident he witnessed, does that make him notable? No. Regarding the Bloomberg Business Week mention: It is a company directory. There are thousands of non-notable companies listed in it. It's not an article, but rather a brief company overview. Why don't we allow people who are searching for this company to find "something" there, rather than in our encyclopedia? CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem comments aren't useful in deletion discussions. It doesn't matter who creates the article. All that matters is if the subject meets the notability criteria and other core policies. TheBlueCanoe 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning slightly towards keep. There's not a whole lot of coverage in independent reliable sources, but there is some, and it's not all just incidental mentions. Aside from that, everything seems adequately cited and verifiable, and doesn't come across as excessively promotional to me. TheBlueCanoe 01:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some context: this AfD was created three weeks ago by a new user who, since joining, has been mass-nominating company and related pages for deletion, as well as removing a lot of cited info, showing no interest in making fixes to bring any of these often credible entries up to speed. There have already been several complaints about these overzealous, time-wasting activities on his/her talk page. Excluding the nominator, the Berkery Noyes entry has three votes for keep and one for delete, after being on AfD for three weeks. Bernie44 (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we're going to give context then I'd like to add some. While the nominator might have been a aggressive in tagging some articles, they got it right with this one. I came across this AfD randomly, and spent a fair bit of time trying to find a secondary source that mentions Berkery Noyes in more than just passing — and I still haven't. Still — after all this time — no one has been able to provide any evidence this company has been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). If someone has come across some evidence of this, then please list it here.

Also this isn't a vote, I'd encourage the closing admin to take the notability criteria into consideration over weak arguments. And if Bernie44 (talk · contribs) is going to have a go at CitizenNeutral (talk · contribs), maybe the closing admin should be aware that Bernie44 is a paid contributor (they outed themselves, for example on their talk-page here), and maybe this should be taken into consideration when giving weight to their argument regarding the notability of pretty obscure companies such as this. - Shudde ^talk 10:08, 6 March 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) 18:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hapkido Boxing International Organization[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage of this organization from any independent reliable sources. The article's only sources and links are to its own web page or to youtube. I was also confused by the comment that is was not to be confused with an organization of the exact same name.Mdtemp (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Hapkido Boxing doesn't seem to be notable, it's hard to claim the organization in charge of it is notable. Plus there are no independent sources.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the above comment. Hapkido Boxing was deemed not notable, so it's hard to see how an organization in charge of it is notable--especially when the article has no independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:22, 4 March 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.