Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 May	24 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gadsen Records[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Sourced by things that are not about them, that don't mention them . Notability is not inherited from who they don't work with. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough secondary source coverage here to warrant retention, and quality improvement and cleanup of the page itself. — Cirt (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the secondary source coverage about Gadsen? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More information found on Gadsen under the umbrella label Organica Music Group. It all checks out. http://organicamusicgroup.com/our-artists ^[1]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regionally aligned force[edit]

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

The article has very few cites. I did a search for news sources, and came up with very little. While this does appear to be something the US Army is developing, it doesn't seem to meet WP:notability standards.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple sources revealed in a Google search, including this article from U.S. News & World Report, another from the Army Times, and some coverage from CNN. Definitely needs cleanup and probably trimming as well. I agree the article's current citations are weak, and if the article is kept they should be expanded to include some of this third party coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, it needs a lot of editing. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to History of the United States Army. Minor new policy initiative of the U.S. Army; the Army pumps out several of these per decade. Wikipedia does not actually need to replicate the official policy document on the issue, but the essentials can be placed (one line mentions, two line mentions) at History of the United States Army and Structure of the United States Army etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the nominator doesn't sign, does that merit a ~~Procedural Keep~~? Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Now signed.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, per the add'l sourcing found by Ginseng, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:IAR, and the personal learning I realized as considering my !vote, including following through on some of the links provided.Boogerpatrol (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Al Halabi[edit]

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

The individual is known only for a a single event which has not been particularly well documented from what I can tell. The coverage that does exist was written because of extreme allegations of which he was not found guilty. The subject of this article has requested its deletion. Users with OTRS access may wish to reference ticket:2013051510002776. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 09:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even make sense: born 1997, served in the air force from 2000-2005? In any case, looks like it doesn't meet WP:BLP1E or WP:PERP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1997 date appears to be a typo (1979). • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A couple of points --

FIrst, the article has undergone some informationectomies, so to the casual reader today, al Halabi might look like a clear instance of a {{blp1e}}, but after spending half an hour looking at the references out there I regard this assertion as very hard to defend.

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Norwitz , we honor the wishes of the subjects to not be covered on the wikipedia -- when they are genuinely on the cusp of sufficient notability. When an individual well past the margin for notabiity requests a courtesy deletion, we should politely decline. Norwitz's notability was voluntary, but if al-Halabi is notable, it was against his will, so we may feel personal sympathy. Nevertheless if he is truly notable we should not let that personal sympathy influence this decision. Geo Swan (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WRT blp1e -- Paul Sperry, in Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington wrote that al-Halabi had been "under investigation" prior to being sent to Guantanamo. Of course being "under investigation" falls for short of establishing notability -- all by itself. But almost all of our BLP subjects have their notability established by carefully evaluating multiple factors. Above it is suggested that the one event in al-Halabi's life that established notability was his being accused of being a spy -- at Guantanamo. Well, if he was under investifation to prior to being sent to Guantanamo, isn't that a separate event? Geo Swan (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Sperry (2005-03-25). Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington. Thomas Nelson. pp. 210–211. ISBN 9781418508425. Retrieved 2013-05-15. Remarkably, Halabi had been under investigation for making anti-American statements before he was assigned to the U.S. base in Cuba.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete person is not notable, these allegations were never substantiated nor proven. Storey involved a rooky agent with sloppy investigation and questionable practices. Article is incomplete and and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.227.40.20 (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received coverage in non-primary reliable sources, however the coverage has been primarily focused on the actions which lead to the subject of this AfD being court martialed, and convicted of violating UCMJ and thus the subject falls under WP:PERP which states:
A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.
As there is no article for the crime, as it is not a "well-documented historic event" and the perpetrator of the crime is not well known I am going to support deletion of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Scaredy Squirrel episodes. L Faraone 00:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scaredy Squirrel (Season 3)[edit]

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

This page duplicates information found at List of Scaredy Squirrel episodes. Currently, the only episode listed, "Big Mistack / Treasure Hunt" already aired under the titles "The Great Mistack / A Squirreled Away Treasure". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ any useful information, then delete.--Beachsand2004 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MergeNo need to have a separate article for this. Merge the useful information with the existing appropriate article then delete this article. Knight of Gloucestershire (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I don't see why any of the seasons need individual articles. They should probably all be merged into List of Scaredy Squirrel episodes. --Jpcase (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Howarth (disc jockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ which has no sources independent of the subject. L Faraone 04:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little or no coverage independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 05:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had a look and repaired the disambig but I couldn't find anything to suggest the subject meets WP:GNG. Stalwart111 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Holmes[edit]

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

Single-source article that links to his company website. No indication of notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN. I see a few sources in which he supplies quotes and comments, but that alone is not sufficient to make him notable. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find various sources which mention the subject but these are in the context of activities by his firm. While these can demonstrate the notability of the firm, that does not carry forward into notability for the subject's biography. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The news sources I can find say that Plainfield is run by Holmes, but as AllyD says they're mainly about the firm rather than him. Additionally, they run to the negative side ("...looking to relocate amid several redemption requests and a wave of lawsuits...") and I don't think they're of high enough quality for that level of negativity in a WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Overs[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the case is stronger for her as an organizer on behalf of prostitutes (via WP:GNG) than as an academic (WP:PROF). Google news has hits from newspapers all over the world citing her as an expert on this subject, but unfortunately I did not find much in-depth coverage of her there. The picture over at Google books looks similar: lots of hits quoting her as an expert, few with nontrivial detail about her. But I did find this article in The Nation which has two paragraphs about her. This story in the Ethiopian Reporter has four short paragraphs about her. We also have some lower-quality sources such as this bio as a plenary speaker at a conference and her Monash reseearcher profile that may be sufficiently independent to be usable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Overs seems to be an important figure in the world of sex work and HIV/AIDS advocacy. Her role is reflected in articles linked by David Eppstein above as well as others. This search of the Google News archive suggests that she's been a factor on this scene since at least 1987. This article describes her as an expert in the field. I would hope to see some of these articles incorporated into the Wikipedia page soon, as it needs more inline citations. groupuscule (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the deletion rationale could be written in English, a language in which "GHits" and "GNEWS" are not words. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for sex worker advocacy. --Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy spam. Ged UK 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No to Compulsory Military Service movement[edit]

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

A very worthy organisation but unfortunately little evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I would have gone straight for {{db-spam}} Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon. L Faraone 00:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicktoons[edit]

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

Almost 100% shows are at List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon, some of its original, some of its not. The main navbox had its TFD and merged into {{Nickelodeon original series}}. Since it has only few sources, I believe the article is redundant. JJ98 (Talk) 20:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 20:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon Would be delete under normal circumstances, but there is no possible way that this article can be deleted without it being directed to somewhere, knowing the Nick article community way too well. Well-known branding for the network's animation (however diluted it is now), but this is just a list of titles and non-sourceable airdates. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon per above. Mediran (t • c) 00:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon - per comments above and the nom's statement. Seems like a sensible solution under the circumstances. Stalwart111 00:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon - Agreed. It's also a major pain trying to moderate the vandalism and date-fakery that goes on here. So if we don't need this article to exist, that's cool. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Actually, it seems to me that the problem with this page is that it should really be expanded into a full-fledged article, rather than existing as a simple list. There are numerous things that could potentially be written about here that would not apply to all of the collective programing that has ever aired on Nickelodeon or any one of the network's original cartoons individually. The lead already contains an interesting introduction to the history of Nicktoons and I wouldn't be surprised if that could be lengthened. Other relevant topics include video games [1] [2] [3] [4], trading cards [5], theme park appearances [6] [7] [8] and even in-depth analysis [9]. All this page needs is someone who is willing to put the necessary time into it. I probably wouldn't take this on myself, but my understanding is that even if an article does not meet Wikipedia's standards in its current state, it is still allowed to remain, as long as it has a clear potential for meeting those standards. If you ask me, this article has a lot of potential. Oh, and the airdates actually can be sourced [10] [11] [12] [13]. --Jpcase (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem right there. I'd love to keep, and under normal circumstances I would. But the WP:NICK project has historically been a very weak and unsupported attempt to reign in the cruft and unsourced info prevalent with Nickelodeon articles; I have asked them to rescue articles of this type many times before which would be easy keeps if they just buckled down and got some sources, but the editors of Nick articles just prefer to go on and on about some SpongeBob episode instead, the critical importance of Nickelodeon's robofeed in Croatia to the world, or how Nick Studio 10 is a televised war crime. This is just a list easily merged with the List of article which came about after sheer frustration with inane detail made it the only article direction we could go in without anyone being annoyed or becoming an easy vandalism target. If they could actually buckle down and put some effort into creating a good Nicktoons article, this is an easy keep. Alas, I just don't see it happening. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but still have to stand by my final point. Just because an article currently isn't in great shape and may not be for a long time doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. It sounds like we both agree that the most ideal outcome would be for this page to remain as its own article, only in an improved state. In that case, what difference would it really make whether it is merged for now and re-created later when someone is willing to put in the necessary effort or is kept and gradually improved over time? Not much; although I do feel that the liklihood of it reaching its full potential would be higher if it is kept for various editors to work on as they come, rather than making someone start over from scratch. Also, merging this into List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon might look sloppy, since this article's lead has interesting information that ought to be preserved, but the list doesn't contain any prose other than the opening sentence. The lead paragraph would obviously fit best under the Animated ("Nicktoons") sub-section, but that would make it incongruent with the numerous other sections, all of which are mere lists. --Jpcase (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg W. Locke[edit]

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

Appears to be a puff piece. The article's subject doesn't appear to meet WP:N or WP:BIO as he hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has he had a defining impact in his profession. Them From Space 20:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find secondary published sources on this individual. All web hits are from social media and other self-generated sites. Notability is not established. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Delete. Pure, unsupported vanity, with numerous links being sprinkled throughout Wikipedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to make any incoming editors aware, I cleaned out the worst of the puffery and unsourced content, so the current version is dramatically different from the previous version. No opinion as of yet about notability, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete compete non-entity. The only Ghits I get for Fort Wayne Reader, that the article cites exclusively, are directory entries. This leads me to the inevitable conclusion that the alleged journal is a micro-publication or self-publication Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 10:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Istanbullu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. He had spoken at some conferences, but nothing notable, as far as I can see. Most material is unsourced, and sources present vary from links to the events where Istanbulu spoke, to Facebook- and Wordpress-entries and WP:SPS. Most work is done by a single user and various IP's (who didn't edit other articles). Tags with concerns for WP:N, WP:TC, WP:BLPPROD and WP:O were deleted by the anon IPs without improving the article. In short, it looks like an ad.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23. Snotbot t • c » 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trained in hospitality management, but claims to have given university lectures in quantum physics. Nothing of substance in Google news, books, or GS. Deadlinks and facebook pages are the sources, etc. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiability and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The claims of being internationally known as a keynote speaker on advanced scientific topics bring WP:REDFLAG into play, especially as the speaking events verifiable through the links on the article look more like invitations from student religious groups. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by INeverCry per CSD criterion G3 (blatant hoax). (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dingdingwallah Rebellion[edit]

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

Possible WP:HOAX, no hits whatsoever for "Dingdingwallah Rebellion". Not obviously eligible for G3. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed that its a likely hoax. The reference added doesn't appear to exist, either. Tagged for speedy deletion as such. Them From Space 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been speedied, if someone wants to do a NAC. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Article about book that has been tagged as unsourced since 2008, and has no indication of its notability. Ohwrotcod (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now done some work on this article: added a number of citations, bit of clean-up. I'll try to do some more. You get 21,000 Ghits for "lance parkin" "cold fusion": the challenge is only sorting out which constitute reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Strong Keep As per Bondegezou plus the article is now much improved with multiple citations which meet WP:RS. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the worst website, and everyone should grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.253.171 (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bondegezou has now added sources to the article, however a)some don't mention the book at all, b)the only one that is a verifiable source simply mentions that Parkin wrote a book called 'Cold Fusion' that is about 'Doctor Who'. Is that really worthy of a Wikipedia article, and not merely a mention on the Lance Parkin article? [14]. Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ohwrotcod's comments are demonstrably untrue and Ohwrotcod is now making dubious edits to the article. All the citations added describe the book in question. I am unclear which citation Ohwrotcod feels is the only "verifiable source", but all the citations say more than that "Parkin wrote a book called 'Cold Fusion'." As I said at a related AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return of the Living Dad), it is difficult to see Ohwrotcod's nomination as being in good faith given his/her prior comments. That said, I recognise this article needed work, which is why I have been adding material to it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My comments are entirely true. I removed much CRUFT, which was both entirely in-universe and completely unsourced. As I stated earlier, the BBC link is certainly a WP:RS, but all it does is mention in passing that Parkin wrote Cold Fusion. It is not in any way an article about Cold Fusion. The "not in citation given" tags are because while the website listed is itself of far-from-certain reliability, nowhere did it specifically mention Cold Fusion. I suggest Bendegezou look at a thing called WP:SYNTHESIS, and another called WP:OR. Ohwrotcod (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ohwrotcod removed the plot synopsis: having a plot synopsis is standard for novel articles and not fancruft. The (archived) BBC link is an interview with Parkin. It is not about Cold Fusion, but covers Cold Fusion among several of his works. There is a question and an answer on Cold Fusion. It is entirely wrong to say that "all it does is mention in passing that Parkin wrote Cold Fusion." I discuss the not-in-citation tags and other edits at Talk:Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). The article does not name the book as Cold Fusion, but it is very clearly referring to this novel. Ohwrotcod also added a WP:SYNTH tag for material that is taken directly from the source given. Bondegezou (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Simply, where does it specifically refer to "Cold Fusion"? Not your WP:OR or what you think/believe. Quite simply, where in the article does it specifically refer to "Cold Fusion" by name? Nowhere. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the state when deletion was first proposed, the article was in a poor state, and I could not have argued for it. But people have taken the deletion notice positively and worked to vastly improve the article. Enough independent sources have been added to prove notability, so I now vote keep.Rankersbo (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved, and tthe reasons given for deletion (by a user who's been temporarily banned for their behaviour on the page in question) now seem entirely spurious. Phil PH (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: PhilPh is mistaken, in that the one source added does not mention the topic of the article at all, only the author. I added a relevant tag, but PhilPH and Bondegezou both removed it, despite my bringing the topic up on the article's discussion page. Sadly, I foolishly broke the 3RR, and was blocked. The source(if one can call it that) still remains, but the tag has once again been removed... In other words, despite persistent deception to the contrary, the article remains unsourced. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I have never removed any tags from this article -- or even edited it, as a cursory glance at the revision history would have confirmed. Phil PH (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: 5 sources are given in the article. Ohwrotcod disputes one of these. That one has been discussed on the article's Talk page and 3 other editors concur that it does refer to the topic of this article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed. It would be better if Ohwrotcod would stop with the personal attacks too (see also here: User_talk:Ohwrotcod#Increased_block) but he is relatively new to Wikipedia, to be fair.StuartDouglas (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Living Dad[edit]

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

Unsourced article has been tagged as such for 5 years Ohwrotcod (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now done some work on this article: added a number of citations, expanded some sections. I'll try to do some more. You get 149,000 Ghits for orman + "return of the living dad": the challenge is only sorting out which constitute reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Bondegezou. Does seem odd that two Dr Who books have been suddenly nominated for deletion by the same user who systematically removed PROD tags from dozens of Big Finish audio pages at the same time, though without making any substantive edits to the pages in question. Assume Good Faith obviously, but it does seem a little tit-for-tat?StuartDouglas (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kate Orman has written several books and there are numerous hits for her, but how many WP:RS can you find that specifically refer to this Book?Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to StuartDouglas. I already mentioned the background to this situation at WP:AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ohwrotcod. As seen at User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F, Ohwrotcod (then editing as 41.132.117.15), took offence at some edits I've been making to some other Dr Who articles and accused me of a "vendetta". There were later comments like [15] and [16]. In what appears to be a response, s/he then tagged nearly every Virgin Dr Who book as being of questionable notability in 80 minutes of editing yesterday (see [17] and onwards), then started on PRODs and (after some issues around how PRODs work) AfDs. Then, s/he removed PRODs, reverted re-directs etc. for multiple Big Finish audio articles. Further non-WP:AGF comments today include [18] and [19]. I find it difficult to continue assume good faith at that point. However, that said, this article was in need of improvement; as I said, I've now done some work on it.

Comment in response to Ohwrotcod: those 149,000 hits are for a search combining "orman" and "return of the living dad", so they are specific to this work. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you need help identifying WP:RS? Fan websites, or the book being listed for sale on ebay do not count as WP:RS. The other thing is that Kate Orman is notable, and this would be listed under her various works. But where are RS that are specifically about the book? Also, please keep any perceived personal matters out of it. Ohwrotcod (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/ Redirect somewhere. Frankly I don't see any sign of out-universe notability for this book. Probably it deserves a redirecting target, not sure which it should to be the more appropriate. Cavarrone (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to Ohwrotcod: I have not used any fan websites or eBay listings in this article, although of course such will contribute to the total Google hits. That's why I said above "the challenge is [...] sorting out which constitute reliable sources." Editors should also see the related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). As for personal matters, we should always assume good faith, but assuming good faith does not mean ignoring substantial evidence to the contrary. I refer to my summary above and comments at the Cold Fusion AfD and at AN/I.
Comment in response to Cavarrone: should the AfD decide against this article, a re-direct to Kate Orman or to Virgin New Adventures would seem most appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bendegezou stated that there are 149,000 hits. I merely stated that the majority of those are likely relating to either Kate Orman herself, or are listings on Amazon or ebay etc. I never stated that Benodegezou ever tried to insert those into the article, merely that the overwhelming majority of those 149,000 are certainly not WP:RS(or even relevant) under Wikipedia Policy..... A redirect to Virgin New Adventures sounds reasonable. Ohwrotcod (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With reservations. Article still needs a lot more work, but there are now enough reputable sources quoted to justify notability. Rankersbo (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ohwrotcod has now been blocked for 2 weeks. Bondegezou (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On appeal, that was changed to 72 hours. Bondegezou (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about AIDS[edit]

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

Just a list of titles. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user with no other edits [20] created this as a student project for The New School as referenced in the lead of the article. If there were enough blue links to Wikipedia articles, it'd be useful~~, but since it doesn't I say delete.~~ Dream Focus 14:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decided since nothing gained by destroying it, it not harming anything and could be useful to someone, I'm staying Neutral on it. Anyone know of a way to search for books which were bestsellers and also had AIDS in them? Surely there are some out there. Dream Focus 03:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good educational and encyclopedic value, regardless of amount of bluelinks on the page itself. — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of books with something about AIDS in them. Are any of these books bestsellers? Can we find any reviews on them? Are the writers famous? Dream Focus 03:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. There are books that are bestsellers. There are plenty of reviews on them. There are numerous books with AIDS even in the title of the books, themselves. These things are quite easy to find and research, actually. Here is but one example: http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=HIV+intitle:AIDS&num=10 — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not so easy to find. Your search didn't result in anything. I tried to Google site:http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/ AIDS and didn't come up with any results for the virus. HIV had no results at all. Dream Focus 20:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully strongly disagree. There are 740,000 results at http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=HIV+intitle:AIDS&num=10 and you don't think any of them are notable? — Cirt (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can only list the ones that are proven WP:Notable by Wikipedia standards, and nothing else, then the list has value. Dream Focus 16:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: New York Times Bestseller. Here is but one example. As requested, above. 7 MILES A SECOND, by David Wojnarowicz and James Romberger. Description by The New York Times: "This is the autobiographical tale of David Wojnarowicz — about life as a hustler on the streets of New York City and living with AIDS." Please note that there are likely other results of bestsellers not searchable on The New York Times website. Please also note that "bestseller" is not the only type of categorization of conferred notability, far from it. — Cirt (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Search update: 573,000 results for http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=AIDS+intitle:HIV&num=10 and, as noted above, for search of http://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=HIV+intitle:AIDS&num=10 there are 740,000 results. Surely among these results there is encyclopedic and educational value in assembling a list for readers and visitors to Wikipedia seeking further assistance in research on this notable topic on the subject of science. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Existing pages in category: Further, please note that there are 33 total pages listed in Category:HIV/AIDS in literature. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suffers the same problem as many other lists: inclusion is difficult to determine (books in other languages, for instance, are not listed), and the whole thing is better served by using categories. JFW | T@lk 10:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons by JFW, with my opinion being that inclusion is not difficult, it is impossible. Moreover, I do not see any encyclopedic value for such a list. --Garrondo (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the Category:HIV/AIDS in literature is enough, and its entries generally fulfill the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion. Also, with the google books search already giving 747,000 results, I don't think this list contributes much further to the world of knowledge on the web. With the google engine already sorting such books by relevance, it would require extensive work on this list to sort out the most notable ones and add individual references supporting their notability - more extensive work than I think can be achieved in a foreseeable future. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles I clicked links to from that category have no references or reception section at all. Anyway, if enough of them are notable books, and the list only linked to books with articles, then it would have value. Right now though, its pretty useless. Dream Focus 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Category:HIV/AIDS in literature suffices for works that are of note. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If I want a list of books about the subject I can go to Amazon et al. This is not to say there isn't a good article to be written about HIV/AIDS in literature with a list of examples, but pure lists with neither reference nor references are not useful and should never be encouraged. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The books listed all share a common subject element, but that is all. The list is not, and never could be, exhaustive, and therefore falls foul of WP:UNENC. This sort of thing is far better listed in a category rather than a page, and we already have such a category in this case. A1octopus (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that any list should be exhaustive. Many, if not most, of our lists are of topics that pass our notability guidelines. And the policy that you linked is totally irrelevant to this topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very difficult to believe that there are no notable books about AIDS, and, if there are such books, we should list them. Has anyone commenting above actually checked whether there are any before piling on the "delete" opinions? And has anyone taken into account that categories and lists are complementary? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JFW. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very useful list of books, more useful than what you could find on Amazon (where you wouldn't find all these titles by searching for HIV/AIDS literature, etc.). The list, while not complete, is very comprehensive, listing most of the important literary works published that take HIV/AIDS as a central theme in the U.S., and therefore a useful research tool. I'm someone who has worked extensively on the literature of HIV/AIDS and found consulting it useful - sfkruger — Preceding Steven Kruger comment added by Sfkruger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edudigm[edit]

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

No secondary reliable source, only present here as an unencyclopedic promotional material Solomon7968 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as more non-notable promotional rubbish. Of the sources, one is just a link to a series of news stories not mentioning the subject, one is a listing which appears to have been placed by representatives of the subject and one is a brief mention. No significant coverage found elsewhere. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 00:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T.I.M.E. Aqua Regia[edit]

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

No secondary reliable source, only present here as an unencyclopedic promotional material See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triumphant Institute of Management Education (2nd nomination) Solomon7968 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons given in the other AfD mentioned by the nom. This is just more promotional material for a run-of-the-mill institute in India using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. L Faraone 00:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Phone version history[edit]

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

Violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG; it is written in a list/table-based style. I had attempted to rewrite it in such a style earlier, but was blocked due to an apparent requirement of consensus. A similar page was recently deleted as a violation of this policy. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Win-phone is history anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 15:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All other major operating systems have a version release history page. The reason provided by History2007 above is also false and prejudiced-- WP is actually the fastest growing OS on the market, has higher market share than Blackberry according to IDC and Kantar (making it the 3rd most-used mobile OS in the world), and has increased its market share ever since WP8 was released. If anything, WP is growing and becoming more relevant every day. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version history pages for iOS and Android are identical to that of Windows Phone. These articles are designed to be listed this way. Gamer9832 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: My logic was based off the deletion discussion for a similar page for Chrome OS, which successfully cited WP:NOTCHANGELOG, but I also noticed that according to the discussion, it wasn't being updated either. Additionally, somehow the Android and iOS articles don't qualify per what seems to be ignoring all rules combined with assertions that its useful and are prose (but it still looks "Tables or lists of changes", which policy says should be avoided). In a perfect world, List of Ubuntu releases should be the role model for these pages, but no, you just have to write them in a style that technically violates policy just because other stuff exists. Unfortunately, I predict that everyone is going to share this opinion, so I have no choice but to stop. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Jon Halasz[edit]

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

This person is really not notable. He published one novel, which as far as I can tell is not notable, he wrote some short stories and some poems and a few others things. Plus the article really does not have any sources. What it has is not really varrified, and it is unclear if the stuff was varrified that he would count as notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He appears to have done some computer science related papers, but they do not look to be widely cited, so I think he fails the guidelines for an academic, and really do not see how his one novel would make him a notable novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there are NO references in this article. Someone has to find a reference otherwise it is most likely to be deleted. Ashbeckjonathan 00:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Rajesh Kotecha[edit]

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

Time to put a stop to this. Author, an SPA, has tried this article enough times by now (also as Rajesh Kotecha and Wikipedia:Rajesh Kotecha). Kotecha's clinic was deleted as promotional (Wikipedia:Chakrapani Ayurveda--that clinic's website is here, FYI).

Vanity biography for a non-notable person. Speedy was declined with reference to the Awards section; there is only one actual award there, and there is no indication that this is a notable one, nor is the sourcing at all reliable. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SCHOLAR. I am unable to find secondary sources that would indicate notability, either general or based on academic achievements. -- Scray (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A single associated document in GS that has never been cited is telling. Agricola44 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteAfd is a waste of time. It should be speedily deleted. Solomon7968 (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd speedy tagged it, since it was a copy of another speedily deleted article (Rajesh Kotecha), and since I believe that it does not credibly assert importance, much less notability. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with extreme prejudice). Lesion (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Transporters Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No significant reliable coverage provided in any of the provided citations, nor could any be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. blatant advert, article is full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Renowitzky[edit]

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

Non notable rapper. Koala15 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being a hip-hop musician does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears at least locally notable per references cited in the article, including full articles about him and his nonprofit organization by the Oakland Tribune and a local TV station. --MelanieN (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Oakland Tribune reference, and I'd lean towards MelanieN's position regarding the subject's notability. I don't see a policy-based reason for deletion being put forward here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conceit (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable rapper. Koala15 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 03:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete considering it notable would be conceited. History2007 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the previous AfD. An article from the San Francisco Chronicle and an interview by NPR are listed in the article; though not properly cited as references, they should be enough for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per MelanieN; and no policy-based reason for deletion has been put forward here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArUco[edit]

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

After an in depth look through WP:NSOFT and its notability criteria, as well as searching for notable sources via Google, I am led to believe that this software does not meet the notability requirements for inclusion. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added this article because it was referenced on the wikipedia page 'List_of_augmented_reality_software'. As you can see there are only 9 items in the 'Open Source' section, ArUco being one of them which I would consider to be notable software in the field of Augmented Reality. ArUco is also referenced on the 'ARToolKit' page as an alternative library. Sietl (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is notable, as you claim, then where are the sources for it? I trawled through 5 search pages of ArUco search finds, checking each one, and none of them are what I would consider notable sources as suggested by WP:NSOFT. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This AR library fails WP:N and WP:V. The failure of WP:V is not to say that it does not exist but fails to show anything beyond "it exists". I can't find anything encyclopedic about this article. Pmedema (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Keeping Your Money Show[edit]

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

Local Michigan radio show - I couldn't find anything useful on Google, does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this show meets WP:GNG, WP:RPRGM, etc. Gong show 18:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sports radio station airing a show talking about money on Saturday mornings? Definitely brokered programming, where the company behind this show pays to get on the radio. Looking at all the other stations that carry with it suggests time-brokered signals and stations that turn off the live mike on the weekend too, this doesn't have notability to be found. Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Completely lacking coverage from reliable, independent sources. WP:SIGCOV Levdr1lostpassword / talk 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Vallejo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:Artist. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a lot of work, but she has become notable. She has 2 pieces in the LACMA plus 3 other museums.[21] I found several references which I've placed temporarily in the external sources section. [22] & [23] University of CA Library,[24] LA Weekly,[25] Museum of the Southwest,[26] Artweek LA.--Nixie9✉ 14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appear to be plenty of sources for a substantial article.FigureArtist (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous and Moving Tour[edit]

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

Concert achieved little coverage, article has no references Freikorp (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V as per WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Man (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable musician, plus no coverage can be found on this artist. Koala15 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 00:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G-search turns up no sources that would satisfy WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He does seem to satisfy criterion 5 of WP:NMG. It also seems disingenuous to say “no coverage can be found on this artist”—you couldn’t have been trying very hard. —Wiki Wikardo 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 00:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 00:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechel Reisz[edit]

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

This is an article about a Hungarian-born French rabbi who moved to the US after his retirement. I came upon this article through Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis where Mechel Reisz' name came up a couple of weeks ago. (The claim, which I don't doubt, is that Reisz died on April 24) I noticed a complete absence of media reports of his death which indicated that his importance was possibly slightly overstated in the article. The article does cite several sources but after considering their content precisely, it's not even clear that any of them mention Mechel Reisz.

The source used most directly is a book Ruth Blau and a full paragraph of her work is quoted. There is at least one big problem: there's no guarantee that she's talking about Mechel Reisz since she doesn't give of the name of the rabbi she's describing. The author of the article asks us to accept the fact that the rabbi is Reisz. Blau says that the rabbi is "a Romanian Jew" whereas Reisz was apparently born in Hungary. (of course this might be due to the fact that some Jews in Hungary viewed themselves as Romanian but the discrepancy is still problematic)
Three other books are provided as references and each would be a strong sign of notability if they actually mentioned Mechel Reisz. According to Google Books however, they don't [27] [28] [29]
The last reference was published in Inyan (apparently a weekly associated with Hamodia). I cannot find trace of this online. I don't doubt that it exists but our article says that it's a letter to the editor which is far less reliable than a piece by a journalist. Given the title of the letter and its use in the article, it probably consists of little more than one apocryphal anecdote about Mechel Reisz and is not the kind of source we can actually build an article on.
I have tried to find better sources but I came up empty.

All in all, I just don't see how Reisz meets the requirements of WP:BIO nor do I feel that the current content is supported by reliable sources or even verifiable. Pichpich (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rabbi Reisz's recent death was covered in virtually every Haredi publication; it is very likely that there are several in-depth articles about him. A search of his name in Hebrew (יחיאל מיכל רייז, some times abbreviated to מיכל רייז,‎ "מיכל" is also spelled מעכיל or מעכל) brings up many results, some of which may imply notability. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: After reading nearly every online reference to him (to which I referred above), including the rabbinic literature databases hebrewbooks.org and otzar.org, I conclude that though he was very well-liked and quite well-known in the Hasidic community, Rabbi Reisz was not a very notable man. I could be convinced otherwise if it could be demonstrated that he was covered in-depth by an off-line Haredi newspaper, but the level of coverage on Haredi online news sources and forums indicates that this is unlikely.

(Note that his posthumous title, "Rebbe" and/or "Rabbi" of Paris, is apparently merely honorary; one unreliable but apparently accurate source states so specifically. ~~Also note that I am not confident that his surname is spelled correctly~~. Also, from what I know about the history of the Hasidic community of Paris, the claims of Rabbi Reisz's uniqueness are quite dubious.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the spelling of his surname; it appears that his sons spell their name that way. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 04:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak (G11). (non-admin closure) Gong show 18:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stojan Razmovski[edit]

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

No resources. Ghorpaapi (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23. Snotbot t • c » 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Maurice Davis[edit]

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

Claims to fame are "boxing commissioner of New Jersey and ABC VP." I don't see how either of those meet notability guidlines. Davis is mentioned in the references as any state official would be, but that's it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 14. Snotbot t • c » 06:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of self promotion. All of the information in the article comes from referece one which is a self-bio. Also, GS reveals his webpage 'http://www.aaronmauricedavis.com/#!about' that that has the same language as the wikipage and is promoting his consulting services.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it isn't self-promotion, it certainly is WP:COPYVIO.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a crappy article that is largely taken straight from one or two online sources. But his position as the top official overseeing boxing in two states, serving currently s Director of the State Athletic Control Board in New Jersey responsible for overseeing boxing and other combat sports combined with having been the boxing commissioner in Kansas are rather clear claims of notability and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support that in the article. The article should be retained and restructured as deletion is not the solution for poorly written articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't believe that being a state boxing commissioner is quite enough to show notability, especially when there seems to be a lack of significant coverage. Every source is about the same event so I think WP:ONEEVENT applies and the sources are just passing mentions of him or focus on other people.Mdtemp (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with alansohn that this article is for crap, however...The coverage at NJ.com, a respected and well read newspaper website, which was an article entirely about Davis, combined with the fact that he has held a highly visible appointed political post in two different states, and his actions in those posts have been covered in the media, lead me to say that he does pass WP:POLITICIAN. I would like to see some referencing on the VP of the ABC. I assume this is the American Boxing Commission, not the TV network, but some sourcing would be nice. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the sources to meet WP:GNG and being nominated by the state attorney general and approved on a 2-0 vote by the state athletic commission doesn't show me that he meets WP:POLITICIAN. It may be WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if the ABC president doesn't have an article, I'm not seeing that being one of the vice presidents shows notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a search on yahoo doesn't give any hits when looking for news. Here is the source, only thing that comes remotely close is a list of names from a school graduation. http://au.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkmuUM6BRVS0AU1YL5gt.?p=Aaron+Maurice+Davis&fr=&fr2=piv-web Whitewater111 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage necessary for WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Political collapse of the United States (hypothetical)[edit]

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

Hypothetical situation. There probably are enough sources out there for this topic to meet WP:GNG but I don't believe that this is an appropriate encyclopedic subject. Funny ^Pika! 12:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable because discussed in multiple sources (Slate did a series on various forms of collapse[30]) and while we may want to combine this with related themes (social collapse, economic collapse, etc) it's a legitimate topic. Wouldn't oppose merging if there are relevant targets. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete it is not any form of standard study, just random people making random guesses. wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALball. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for speculation, soapboxing, prognostication, or hypothetical analysis. Ray^Talk 13:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & WP:NOT. Non-encyclopedic subject.--JayJasper (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too broad, vague and hypothetical to really work as a topic for a single article. Robofish (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasonings of TRPOD & RAY.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy, as Wikipedia shouldn't be WP:CRYSTAL, prognosis center, also article is written more like an essay in totally unencyclopedic style, with authors own opinion and others' WP:POVs. I am totally against to write articles in "What would be if it would be?" style.Alex^{discussion ★} 11:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Death Valley Academy. (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone Continuation High School[edit]

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

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article appears to be written like an advertisement.
This article does not cite any references or sources

See also: other articles of the same author with the same problems: Tecopa-Francis Elementary School, Shoshone Elementary School
Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. As a general rule, verifiable high schools are notable, and Shoshone Continuation High School does have a website, here: [31] . It bears mentioning, however, that the current text appears to be more or less a verbatim copy of the first paragraph of that web page. Since this is a special "continuation school" and there isn't any more said about it right now, I wouldn't mind if we decided to merge this into the more informative existing article for Death Valley Academy or the Death Valley Unified School District. Per usual practice, those elementary school articles should be redirected to the same place. By the way, what's also needed is some usable content about the district's actual primary high school, Death Valley Academy, which currently has no article of its own and gets only a bare mention in the district article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC) modified by ---Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an article about Death Valley Academy, but it was deleted on 21 May. (Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no independent sources). I agree that the topic is notable, but the prosa is poor.Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that this continuation high school is located on the campus of Death Valley Academy. The ideal solution would be to have an article about Death Valley Academy which included a little about the continuation high school, and a redirect to it from this name (continuation schools usually don't get much press and IMO could be an exception to the "all high schools are notable" generalization, especially when they are contiguous with a "regular" high school). Let me see if I can do anything along these lines, such as recreating the article about Death Valley Academy. Otherwise, merge to Death Valley Unified School District per Arxiloxos. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There, I created an article about Death Valley Academy, which contains information about the continuation school. I now recommend a Redirect from this article to the article about the Academy. --MelanieN (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos a-plenty to MelanieN for her well-done rescue of Death Valley Academy, which is actually a somewhat more interesting topic than the usual small high school. And I am fine with the high school article as the redirect target for the continuation school. And as noted above, the elementary school articles noted by the nominator should be redirected to the school district article (which does not require an AfD, but I thought I might wait until consensus had emerged here). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The elementary schools noted are actually up for AfD, although as you note they could have been simply redirected. (It's kind of weird that the high school got speedy-deleted, but the elementary schools and the continuation school went to AfD). They are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tecopa-Francis Elementary School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoshone Elementary School. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasoning given by MelanieN. May I also say good work by MelanieN in creating the article Death Valley Academy; I hope that it is submitted to WP:DYK.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it's probably too short. --MelanieN (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phaiart wrestling[edit]

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

Non-notable, perhaps even a hoax? There seems to be no trace in Google, YouTube promotional for 1 kids wrestling school?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If this isn't a hoax, it certainly seems to fall under "things made up one day". I found no significant coverage or reliable sources for this.Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Search for the term reveals a whopping 7 Google results. While this may or may not be real, it's certainly not notable. CaSJer (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No sources or indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong snowball delete as above. Could have been CSD'd. — Richard BB 11:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Van Oyen[edit]

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

Article CSD'd twice - for promotion and then for importance. Declined and Afd suggested. Thus nominating for notability even though there are links to him Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is quite popular on youtube. VitalyzdTv has his own page on wikipedia and he is also a famous youtuber. I think 30 million views is a noble achievement to deserve a wiki page no? Ungnome (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Ungnome (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject being discussed.

Delete-What? This is wikipedia UGnome :) and Plenty of people can get 30 million views,It's like deleting PSY's Article because of to many views,Just take Skydoesminecraft. He Dosen't need a Wikipedia article and is immensely popular. Radioactiveplayful (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Radioactiveplayful[reply]

Weak keep Two full-length news articles on the subject listed in article, a copy of the Brisbane Times article here, a lengthy mention here, and short pieces about him here, here, here and here. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good secondary source coverage, within scope of WP:COMEDY and WP:INTERNET. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand words picture[edit]

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

An endorsed PROD was removed. Article does not assert notability and is difficult to research. If the creator can come up with something more than a promotional blog entry then that might be ok but as things stand, this article subject seems not to meet WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that an article with the same titled was previously speedy deleted per criteria A10. I've no idea whether the recreation is similar, although the timing means that the two articles may possibly have been created by the same person. Might showing a lengthy list of words that appear in the picture, as the present version does, amount to some form of close paraphrasing? It is an odd situation! - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the creator of the article now claims to be the creator of the artwork. I think that they are a bit confused about what is acceptable here but I am up to my eyeballs sorting out other issues elsewhere. It is unlikely to affect the outcome of this discussion but if someone has the time to explain to them then it would be A Good Thing. - Sitush (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - adds no new useful content.--Laun chba ller 09:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of any notability. PamD 09:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just lack of evidence of notability - I doubt if any such evidence exists. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could probably be speedy deleted as a copyvio of this. In any case, this is clearly someone's attempt to use Wikipedia to promote their project. There's no evidence of notability, no evidence of third-party coverage. Easily fails WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 03:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you care to delve further into the website I linked above -- and why you would, I don't know; in any case I took that bullet for the team -- there's a link to someone's deviantart page. Clearly, someone decided to create a page on Wikipedia for his or her drawing, for shits-and-giggles or to become famous, who knows? Although this could probably be speedy deleted, I'm thinking we should let it run its course as speedy deleting a recreation of an AfD deletion is pretty simple. Not that I'm saying this will definitely be deleted or anything. But if it is, I'll bet good money it will be recreated. freshacconci talktalk 03:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - completely non-notable something someone drew one day. Canterbury Tail talk 03:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - so I'm not tempted to click the link Sandover (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Nozari[edit]

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

The sources provided are news coverage of her books. The same SPA user created her page in Persian Wikipedia. After a search in Persian, I wasn't able to find one single source that covers her in detail. Just her profiles on various websites. Fails WP:AUTHOR.Farhikht (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Farhikht (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that a previous version of the article (by the same contributor) was deleted in 2011 as a copyvio. GabrielF (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and GabrielF. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep - obviously pointy nomination from an editor since blocked for an obvious username violation, and co. (non-admin close). Stalwart111 14:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Person[edit]

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

This man is not notable. He does not deserve a Wikipedia article of his own. Bill Still and Leroy Saunders were deleted, and this one should be too. Carlfuckingperson (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete there doesn't appear to be any reliable sources outside blogs and his personal website. NO mention of what qualifies Person for an article. DogsHeadFalls (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Recovery[edit]

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

Non-notable. I see no indication that the band or album is notable, no chart success, etc. Scott 10:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I keep swinging from weak keep to weak delete, but well. The reviews from AMG and Punknews provide enough commentary to produce a small stub covering how the music was received and the album's relative importance, given it is some sort of turning point for the band for being their first label release, and because of the death of drummer Scott Shad shortly before its release. Another review from staticdomain.com is available through archive.org [32], and I found this one from rockzone.com [33], but I'm completely unfamiliar with both sites and whether they are reliable — Frankie (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timeline of Indian history. Although no one proposed this I believe it meets the spirit of this discussion. If anyone wants to merge any of it or create the page 1500s in India I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1502 in India[edit]

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

No scope for improvement Benedictdilton (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DeleteThis type of articles should be dealt with shoot at sight policy. Afd is a waste of time, this should be speedily deleted. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something along the lines of 1500s in India. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe editor who was made this article has made a quite a good number of contribution. I do not understand why he has made this kind of non sense pages. This type of pages do no good than declining the quality of an encyclopedia. India has seven millenium of history we cannot write the history year by year. So speedy delete. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge User:Icarusgeek has been grinding many such articles (for example, 1964 in South African sport, 2005 in Nigeria, and 1935 in Southern Rhodesia) so that's where his/her editcount comes from. I agree that creating articles such as 1502 in India when Timeline of Indian history remains empty makes little sense. I am an inclusionist but not an eventualist for precisely this reason. Icarusgeek isn't the only culprit and I think the community should investigate this proliferation of stubs. Merge this information into an appropriate article or list. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not get your point of merge. What merge? To which title? All these articles should be speedily deleted. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, each of these articles should be merged into Timeline of Indian history, which is my suggestion. I am more or less fine with speedy deletion of all of them, as they tend not to have meaningful content.Chris Troutman (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there any guidelines on how to list an entire set of articles for deletion like the whole sets of these articles or Afd is to be applied to them separately. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus here appears to be "merge", but I want to point out that there are a dozen similar articles at AfD (that should have been bundled) with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timeline of Indian history. Although no one proposed this I believe it meets the spirit of this discussion. If anyone wants to merge any of it or create the page 1500s in India I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1501 in India[edit]

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

No scope for improvement Benedictdilton (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something along the lines of 1500s in India. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1502 in India. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus here appears to be "merge", but I want to point out that there are a dozen similar articles at AfD (that should have been bundled) with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar · · 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timeline of Indian history. Although no one proposed this I believe it meets the spirit of this discussion. If anyone wants to merge any of it or create the page 1500s in India I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1500 in India[edit]

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

Wasting space no scope for improvement Benedictdilton (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something along the lines of 1500s in India. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1502 in India. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus here appears to be "merge", but I want to point out that there are a dozen similar articles at AfD (that should have been bundled) with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (this AfD), 1500 in India, for the time being. czar · · 15:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

108 Emergency Service Uttarakhand[edit]

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

This small piece of article can inserted as a subsection under Uttarakhand Benedictdilton (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if this is promotional or serving as some sort of a public service announcement for English-speaking Internet-users in this Uttarkhand place, but this could have been Prodded due to a lack of controversy. Why even insert is as a subsection somewhere else? There aren't any reliable sources to even prove that the assertions here are true. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article seems to just announce a business agreement for the provision of 108 (emergency telephone number) service. I don't see this as a useful redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harpagofuator[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this genus exists. The only sources online refer back to this page. Yzx (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like Yzx I did not really find any evidence of its existence except from sources that ultimately lead back to Wikipedia. The only sources I could find was on Yahoo answers (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110211112338AAzzKKR) and Barnes and Noble (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sharks-source-source-wikipedia/1104964547). However, the Barnes and Noble site was advertising a Wikipedia book. What further bothers me is that I cannot find the book that is cited on the article. I am beginning to think this is a uninventive hoax. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 17:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~The correct spelling of the genus's name is Harpagofutator [34][35]; but~~ since this article is devoid of any significant treatment of the topic—and since the only "fact" it contains, that Harpagofu[t]ator is an extinct shark, is incorrect (sharks being members of the subclass Elasmobranchii, whereas Harpagofutator belonged to the subclass Holocephali)—it's probably best to delete it and let someone create an actual article at the right spelling. Deor (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, despite the sources I cited above, it appears the real genus name is Harpagofututor (which would indeed be the correct Latin form meaning "grappling-hook fucker"), and we already have an article at Harpagofututor. This should either be deleted as a duplicate article or be redirected there if it's thought to be a plausible misspelling (I don't consider it so myself, which is why I'm leaving my bolded "delete" !vote). Deor (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thanks to nice detective work by Deor, the origin of this article has become clear. I created a redirect from Harpagofutator to Harpagofututor, as that variant spelling is seen on the Internet as well. But I agree that Harpagofuator is a less likely misspelling and we don't need the redirect for it, too. Since the article is the result of a misspelling and the content seems incorrect, best to delete this source of confusion. --Mark viking (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would almost be a speedy WP:CSD#A10 but the article has been in existence too long for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep, wrong venue. There is already a deletion discussion at WP:RfD here, which is where the deletion decision will take place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

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

Digifan23 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag for the speedy deletion as a hoax, as you had posted it in the AfD discussion page. Tags of that sort should go on the article itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also looks like the actual page is a redirect and is being discussed on in the appropriate entry for the redirect, so I'll close this and just prompt for anyone wishing to weigh in on the redirect deletion discussion to go there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Drinker Pro[edit]

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

Utterly trivial. The only acceptable ref. is the Boston Herald, & I don't think it's enough for something so very close to nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not nonsense, but it isn't notable either. Just another of the seemingly infinite number of freeware games out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can only see part of the Boston Herald coverage (paywall), but assuming it is reasonably in depth, this easily meets the coverage requirements of WP:N. Boston Herald and Game Informer are both high-quality sources. Dig is a fine reliable source (it's an alt-weekly that has some odd bits of coverage, but still fine). Mashable's coverage also seems fine (written by their video-game reporter). I really don't see what the problem is. A "trivial" game, but one that grabbed serious attention. Hobit (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I accepted this article at AFC. I deliberated heavily on the notability and edited the content before deciding to approve it. I'm in line with Hobit's thinking. The gameplay itself is admittedly trivial, but that's part of the reason it has garnered so much notability. Rinkle gorge (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are not referenced in the article, but I see coverage of this game in Kotaku, Gamasutra, and Game Informer, among other RSes. This seems to meet WP:GNG to me. -Thibbs (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Agarwal[edit]

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

Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable person. Did not find any single reliable reference, which shows the notability.Jussychoulex (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to company article. ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and a very poor article too. Since there's nothing to be said about him besides that he has a job, the rest of it is hopeless trivia, including (among other fun facts) that he was "pretty good" at badminton in school. I am not making this up, it really is in there! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability (people). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin John Henry[edit]

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

This BLP is a man from the band De Rosa which would appear to have notability; however a separate article for the individual is somewhat not necessary. Moreover, the only citations are social media sites. Bluidsports (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some references relating to his solo work, mainly from Scottish media. If they aren't sufficient, merging to De Rosa is better than deleting, now it has some sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Organization for a Participatory Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly any hits in gnews, and article is quite reliant on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not fail WP:ORG. About 2/3 of sources are secondary. Al Jazeera is among them. Others can be found on Google. JohKar (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon Sports (retailer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:CORP lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - the only significant source is BusinessWeek, the rest do not add to notability per:
- WP:MILL and WP:LOCAL seem to cover this topic - no assertion of notability there's no assertion yet that the business is notable itself for an enduring topic worthy of an encyclopedia article, with not enough sources for details to grown more than a stub. The business is notable for what? 7 stores?
  - local business promo "Best of Boston" sources audience is for WP:LOCAL audience so does not add to notability
- BusinessWeek source may provide some indication of what is important but we only have that single source WP:WHYN
WP:INHERITORG notability isn't inherited from the bombing event coincidentally located outside it
Problems with the Original AfD corrected here (with basis for new AfD discussed here with closing admin) 1. weak nomination against no criteria 2. was significantly different promo article (now bare stub) 3. relisted but still only had 3 !votes against poor criteria (nom, creator and 1 other) 4. New AfD to gather wider audience. Widefox; talk 08:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Article needs more detail and to remain neutral

Comment: from what I can make out, of those 4 links, 1 is a duplicate and 3 are incidental mentions (which do not count for notability per nom WP:CORP). Widefox; talk 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough independent coverage for notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Boston Magazine's annual "Best of Boston" issue is the longest-running and most reputable of the local "Best of" competitions, and the magazine has awarded Marathon Sports its annual "Best of Boston" award, in the "Running Shop" category, for the last 13 years in a row. (I just called the store at 617-267-4774 and they confirmed 13 years straight, and it is also on the store's web site here). This has led Boston Magazine to induct Marathon Sports into the magazine's "Hall of Fame", in that same "Running Shop" category. I can only find online sources for the 2011 and 2012 issues of Boston Magazine, here:

Marathon Sports is active and prominent in the local running community:

Local charities see here and here
Coaching/injury prevention education programs for local high school and collegiate track & field teams see here
More general educational clinics see here
Wednesday run groups see here

The store claims to have implemented a foot and biomechanical analysis in the shoe selection process - what they call "The Right Fit" - "in early 1992, thereby being an early pioneer of the gait assessment component now prevalent among most running and walking specialty stores across the nation". I can not find a source for this, maybe someone else can.

IceCreamForEveryone (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see above (WP:LOCAL) why bostonmagazine may be irrelevant in discussion of notability, and marathonsports site itself is a primary source which is irrelevant for notability Widefox; talk 13:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This business seems notable due to the reputable and reliable media mentions; however, the article is in pretty poor shape. It'll take some bold actions to bring this up to par, but I do feel that the subject merits and article. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand which sources meet WP:CORP? (I'm assuming you agree bostonmagazine is WP:LOCAL ? so does not count for notability) Widefox; talk 13:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, there is some coverage by Newsweek and Runner's World. Now, I also realize that these are mentions in passing, but I view this as an indication that the article should be developed, not destroyed. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidental mentions do not count for notability per second sentence of WP:CORP. If you favour a compromise like WP:USERFY to give it a chance to find sources, please propose as I believe if I did it may be seen as disruptive Widefox; talk 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom : please read WP:LOCAL and base on the actual satisfaction against WP:CORP as per nom (to avoid a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I'd also like to relist to gather wider participation - and per WP:AFD - WP:AVOIDCOI:

currently have limited participation outside the creator User:Whoisjohngalt +
another local editor IceCreamForEveryone out of 18 pages edited, 3 articles were created by User:Whoisjohngalt / overlap (nothing implied by that, I'm assuming just local editors)
+2 other editors Widefox; talk 17:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White pixelization[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline: doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Two sources are an editor-in-chief's chat with readers, one is an article where the subject is mentioned in passing. Appears to be a WP:COATRACK for spreading myths about Swedish immigration politics. Sjö (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic has enough reliable coverage in the media - Expressen and several other sites. In none of the articles the subject is mentioned in passing. It also by definition can't be WP:COATRACK, I suggest the submitter first becomes familar with what WP:COATRACK says.--Warenford (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to what User:Warenford says, the topic seems not to have sufficient coverage, or any coverage at all, in Swedish media. Using Google, Svenska Dagbladet: 0 hits (1 in a reader comment). Dagens Nyheter: 1 hit (in an interview with a well known political extremist). Göteborgs-Posten: 0 hits. Sydsvenskan: 0 hits. Aftonbladet: 0 hits in newspaper text. Sveriges radio (sverigesradio.se): 0 hits. Sveriges Television (svt.se): 0 hits. TV4 (tv4.se): 0 hits. Expressen: no hits in newspaper text, several other hits, but only in context of "debunking" this myth. These are the major Swedish newspapers, public service radio and television and the largest commercial TV-channel. Ah, but they are all part of the conspiracy. /NH (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: all the media you quoted are either liberal or (quasi)state-owned. Its natural that they wouldn't inform about this matter. Expressen didn't debunk the fact that white pixelization happened, on the contrary, they confirmed it, as stated in the article. I was talking about media in general and enough of those mention it, as is apparent from the sources in the article.--Warenford (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understood your comment here that you didn't learn about the subject in swedish media? Back on topic the article isn't noteworthy, if you Google it you'll find more hits on plasma TVs with problems than sites discussing the conspiracy. GameOn (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into pixelization in its own section. --Article editor (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection: I believe that would be giving undue weight to that aspect of pixelization. It has been confirmed in one newspaper in one country and is now discontinued. It's much less significant than the other examples in pixelization. Sjö (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The phenomenon definitely exists, or at least has existed, to some extent in mainstream media in Sweden. The reason that right--wingers & populist nationalist groups are a bit too obsessed about poinying out the phenomenon is, in my opinion, not a reason for deleting the article. Tomas e (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Media is plural, but so far this has only been shown to be used by one single newspaper. Sjö (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, despite the use of the term by certain political sectors the term describes an actual phenomenon an is not per definition biased. Yet the term seems a neologism, but an important one. Dentren | ^Talk 22:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noteworthy subject matter related to topic of censorship. — Cirt (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we can't pretend that this term does not exist.--Bothnia (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Fresh categories added: This is also related to journalism ethics and legal and race issues, such as profiling.Crtew (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Carmichael[edit]

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

No Secondary reliable sources. Only claim of notability being a dean. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this call into question this entire set List of deans of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management? If so, perhaps that should be dealt with in a larger channel rather than just picking them off one-by-one... I'm not sure how WP:N falls in this situation. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There should only be an article on when a dean is famous For something else other than just he is a dean and has Secondary reliable sources. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to fail WP:BIO. I should note that searching for sources is complicated by the fact that there seems to be a William D. Carmichael, Jr who was a much more senior and influential official at North Carolina. Ray^Talk 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GScholar results are distinctly unimpressive but are probably not a fair measure in this case. We are looking at someone who reached a senior position in an Ivy League university in his early thirties, but who left academic life 45 years ago. Chances are that GScholar is significantly underestimating his academic impact. However, what about his post-academic career with the Ford Foundation and Human Rights Watch? This description of his career, concentrating on his later years with the Ford Foundation and his involvement there with human rights, definitely seems substantial, reliable and secondary - with another source as good on both counts, I'd be voting !keep. These are not as good - they seem secondary, reliable but not substantial - but deal with earlier parts of his time with the Ford Foundation. There quite probably are other substantial reliable sources out there, but they may take some searching for - there are also large numbers of passing mentions (for instance, citations of inter-office memos at the Ford Foundation, board membership lists at Human Rights Watch). PWilkinson (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are two William D. Carmichael, Jr among which the senior one was a much more influential official at North Carolina. Solomon7968 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had already noticed your previous comment to that effect - but the sources show that the William D. Carmichael later employed by the Ford Foundation and involved with Human Rights Watch was this one. PWilkinson (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His positions have not been high enough level to be inherently notable and there doesn't seem to be enough nontrivial press coverage to make a good case for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in large part because of honorary LL.D. from the University of the West Indies. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and the Single Mom[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE. I nominated it for CSD, that was contested and the tag removed. I nominated it for PROD with "Reads like a movie theatre poster and fails to meet WP:MOVIE." as the rationale and the person that removed the CSD tag added {{Prod2}}. The article creator then removed the PROD and PROD2 tags. That is the history, the article is still exactly the same as when I marked it for CSD, it still reads as a theatre poster advertisement and it still does not pass notability requirements. Technical 13 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it may be better to argue toward sourcing or lack, rather than arguing for delete because of an editorial issue. Also, we RARELY have films speedied. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing in the article shows the notability of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:NRVE, "notability" is dependent upon sources available through a diligent search and not that they actually be used to source an article. THAT issue and article tone are often addressable issues and not a reason to delete an article. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug>Well, I did try google to extent of my diligence for a subject I don't care. If someone rescued the article, good for it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Not a theatrical film, but a paint-by-numbers Lifetime TV movie. Could be sourced, but it's a ten year-old TV film these days used more for LMN (TV network) filler than remembered as a film that changed things. If not, I'd support deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep. Yes, its an older made-for-tv film, but it has been reviewed. For instance, I was able to quickly find a 2011 review in Oklahoma Gazette [36] and earlier ones in DVD Verdict [37] The Futon Critic [38] and (weakest) Movie Web [39] We do not expect a made-for-TV film to have the coveraqe of a theatrical blockbuster. Wikipedia is not only about the most popular film projects ever. If such independent secondary coverage is not enough, we always have the ability to redirect this to either the director Don McBrearty or List of programs broadcast by Lifetime.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOVIE says that the film must be remembered 5 years after. The 'Oklahome Gazette' review is basically making fun about a dvd release marketed as "“the gift of a lifetime” for Mother’s Day". I wouldn't classify it as a serious film review. Whatever Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem:, WP:MOVIE is applied alongside WP:GNG; see the former guideline's lead section. To be straightforward, a film is considered notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, the notablity guidelines for films, or both. MichaelQSchmidt is making the case that this topic satisfies WP:GNG. WP:MOVIE applies to instances like older films where coverage is not immediately apparent but what exists seems to indicate more coverage that cannot be found right away. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 08:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Sean Horton[edit]

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

The only reference only mentions him in passing, nothing substantive. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as it stands right now, only one source provided.--TV Man 13 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:SIGCOV. The only reference mentions him in passing. This is the ultimate up and coming creative person who helps other up-and-coming artists. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears only someone with a good career as artist/entrepreneur, not yet notable.FigureArtist (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per both Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Retrosexuals[edit]

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

No references at all, does not meet WP:MUS. The article was created in 2005 shortly after the band were formed therefore it looks like it was created as a means of promotion. After all there has been little activity on the article in 8 years. A Google news archive search reveals zilch [40]. Therefore i propose deletion. Bluidsports (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15. Snotbot t • c » 18:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears non-notable. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment amazing how this article survived eight years on Wikipedia without getting caught. But yeah, none of those sources are good enough.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm definitely in agreement. Not notable at all, no reliable sources - definitely not encyclopedic content. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 00:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inzerillo-Gambino Mafia clan[edit]

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

Incomprehensible prose, terrible grammar and spelling and blatantly incorrect information DonCalo (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nom has dutifully notified the article's creator, and I am curious to what sources he or she used for the material. Perhaps there is reliable information about this organization under some other name. Location (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - After looking at the first (unsourced, horrific) version of this piece and the last (virtually non-existent, sub-stub) version, I'm convinced that this is time for the Holy Hand Grenade of Brother Maynard of Antioch, whether or not there is such a "Mafia clan" and whether or not this is an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hand grenade has been thrown and the current version is now sourced. Removing Delete recommendation, no opinion about notability. I support an immediate name change, if kept. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and rename to Inzerillo family as they are the main subject of the article. There are literally bunches of book/news sources about this family/clan. The title is a bit misleading but refers mainly to the well documented relations between Gambino and Inzerillo. The article needs expansion but afd is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per the above. Kudos to Cavarrone for taking the time to getting this in line with Wikipedia's standards! Location (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://organicamusicgroup.com/our-artists

[1] ttp://organicamusicgroup.com/our-artists

[1]