Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 October 19 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Baigrie[edit]

Tom Baigrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • week delete - the article was created by Mattmorris100 (talk · contribs). Matt Morris appears to have a COI here [1]. That said, I don't think that Tom Baigrie is entirely unnotable, but I don't think he really meets the threshold for a WP:BLP at Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject does not meet WP:GNG
  • Delete -- Looks like a NN serial entrepreneur. If anything is notable it would be his firm(s), but they do not seem to ahve articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 24 October 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) 20:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metaleptic art[edit]

Metaleptic art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references or citations withing the article that would be in standing to support this article. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 23:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The name of the person to whom this is (sort of) attributed is misspelled, it's not Jane but Jean Baudrillard. According to the definition of metalepsis, this would be a valid concept, but a strict search for the term seems to indicate this is something someone made up with no notability and thus fails the test for neologisms. It certainly is not anything related to Baudrillard's work, unless I'm missing sources in French or German or some other language. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aargh. Johnbod (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a widely-used term, as Google search shows: there's one guy talking about it in his blog and a few other people who use the adjective to describe art without referring to a particular style or movement. I don't see any value in redirecting to metalepsis which isn't about this narrow definition, so a straight delete is best. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 21 October 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. Nominator withdraws AfD as per discussion below.--Technopat (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copprome Orphanage[edit]

Copprome Orphanage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notablity (WP:ORG): "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Technopat (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NGO, added sources with "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My initial reaction on seeing the nomination was to delete, but Cardamom has a point--there seems to be enough coverage that the case can be made to keep. TheBlueCanoe 03:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the proposer of this AfD, and following Cardamom's addition of sources, am now convinced that it is notable. The page had previously had a multiple issues tag up for a month without any of said issues having been addressed.--Technopat (talk) 09:56, 24 October 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 371[edit]

British Rail Class 371 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs, hardly notable. WP:TOOSOON?? aycliffetalk 21:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Note: Also conflicts with existing British Rail Classes 371, 381 and 471. Modified by aycliffetalk 21:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm seeing no contradiction with the British Rail Classes 371, 381 and 471 article, as those trains were proposed in the 1991, whereas these trains are claimed have been proposed for the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive far more recently; class numbers of never built trains can be reused. However, the article has no sources, and I don't understand why Bombardier is mentioned as the manufacturer without any reference to any train specification and bidding from competitors process. Finding [2] I see the process to find a replacement has started; if reliable sources of the story this aborted attempt can be found, this can be included in this article when it is written. Edgepedia (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it almost appears to be a hoax. I can verify that Merseyrail were looking at replacing the existing trains, but I can't see any proof that this was going to be a Class 371. Nor can I find any proof that Bombardier were going to build it. Literally the only evidence I've seen of its existence is this image. Normally I'd argue to keep most locomotive articles; but there's literally nothing here bar original research, and there's nothing else out there either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. -- Alarics (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted, the information is covered by a broader article. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Zone tragedy[edit]

Twilight Zone tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable on its own. Twilight Zone: The Movie already covers this. Beerest355 Talk 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:EVENT. Three people were killed on a movie set and members of the film crew were criminally prosecuted for it. As an aviation incident, it passes because a notable person was killed- Vic Morrow. I agree with Taylor, the article should be renamed....William 21:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An aviation incident that results in the death of a notable person and is the impetus for the establishment of new regulations is pretty much the definition of a notable plane/helicopter crash. There are lots and lots of references available, even beyond what's already in the article. This is, if anything, a target for expansion, not deletion. That said, the current title is wretched, but I'm not really familiar enough with the project's common practice for naming article on aircraft incidents to suggest a move target; regardless, that's an editorial process, not a matter for AFD. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG if nothing else. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is keep, so I withdraw the nomination. Beerest355 Talk 00:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's No Going Back (Sick Puppies 2013 song)[edit]

There's No Going Back (Sick Puppies 2013 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 18 October 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. WP:SNOW; blatantly obvious WP:BEFORE failure and a frankly puzzling assertion by the nominator that does not reflect a policy-based rationaile for deletion even if it were true - which it is not. The Bushranger One ping only 19:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Heck[edit]

Joe Heck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlinked article Benison talk with me 15:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep A well-referenced biography of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who is indisputably notable. Can nominator better explain the deletion rationale? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A properly referenced biographical article whose subject clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep for all U.S. Congressmen. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 18:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Warlitner[edit]

Jack Warlitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the Newport News orbituary, I find no other sources to cite. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sam Sailor Sing 09:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone using an anonymous IP attempted to remove sources I added to the article.[3] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. The two references were duplicates of the obituary. They were also not in the correct inline <ref> </ref> format. Thanks for trying to add some references. Do you recall anything notable he did? Robert.Harker (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your revert. The reference is not repeated. You are confusing an official obituary with a newspaper article. They are not the same thing, have you actually read them? They are completely different. In addition you removed a second reference that was never in the article. Thirdly you removed the external links section inexplicably. Not every reference needs to be inline cited, and it's certainly no justification to delete references from an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Certainly not the most important subject in the world, but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Had some significant achievement over a long career. Seems to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Lark[edit]

Cristina Lark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews. reddogsix (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous status of "non-notable actor lacking ghits and Gnews" was immediately generated after the page was created with a short paragraph about the actor (her name and the information that she is an actress). Minutes later, more information, references and links were added.--Vivinabel (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The "newspaper interview" has nothing to do with the article subject and the "networks" item is a social media site that is currently down. Regardless neither provide adequate secondary references to support verifable, independent sourcing for the article. reddogsix (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The biography needs to be filled out but this recently written article (10/1/2013) has improved in the few days since being nominated and references have been added. It's a decent stub, I've seen actor stubs with 1/10 of the content this page has. Liz Read! Talk! 14:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. As an aside, I think it's crazy that 8 minutes after this article is posted on to Wikipedia, it gets a PROD, then nominated as a AfD. Articles aren't expected to be B- or C-Class minutes after they're created. Liz Read! Talk! 14:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just how has the article been improved. I don't see a plethora of support for the article or even a small smattering of verifable, independent non-trivial support for the article - actually to be honest the majority of references are IMDB or self-generated. No one is asking for a completed article at inception, but where are the references that support notability?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can anyone comment on whether any of her roles have been significant, as required by WP:NACTOR? It doesn't look like it, but I'm not familiar with many of the roles listed. I can't find any mention of her on Google, either. The award listed earlier seems to be for the web series, not her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:30, 18 October 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 Tenjho Tenge characters#F. The Bushranger One ping only 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tessen Ishiyumi[edit]

Tessen Ishiyumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Alcantara[edit]

Nelson Alcantara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, also an orphan. Most citations are to eTurboNews (eTN), a website founded by the subject of this article, and this article was created and maintained by Etnpr, presumably a PR account for eTN. The article is heavily promotional, and has been previously nominated for a speedy deletion, which Etnpr contested. NAJohnson (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks to be a 60+ ref WP:PUFF. Don't see sources about Alcantara, in the article or Google search. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 18 October 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. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Global Services[edit]

Alliance Global Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable consulting company. No independent references are provided in the article, and all I could find in a News Archive search was press releases. MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Here's one source that provides WP:SIGCOV: [4]. Other sources found thus far are only providing passing mentions, e.g. [5], [6] (in Spanish). If additional sources are found, please ping me at my talk page. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the InformationWeek article identified by User:Northamerica1000, which is effectively content from the firm, all I have found is some routine business announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Foroughi Bastami[edit]

Abbas Foroughi Bastami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined because "there are sources", but extensive searching failed to find any. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for declining WP:PROD deletion was nothing resembling that. I don't know whether the subject is notable, but I object strongly to such misrepresentation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - added one source, also google hits asserts some notability Google Search Result. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No doubt the poet existed but is it a notable poet? I can't find much that would show. Even the sourcing at the Farsi and Arabic Wikipedia is poor. It's not like 19th century Iranian poetry is unknown to the English world, we do have English language sources and experts on it, Google Books comes up with very little to none scholarly notice. --Green Cardamom (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meal Kit Supply LLC[edit]

Meal Kit Supply LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined CSD. I've decided to give the author a chance to show the notability of this company; however, after a week, none of the sources added meet our reliability guidelines. - Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Passing mentions that this company exists (and, apparently, a brief appearance of its packaging in a movie) is not anywhere near the level of notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC Armstrong[edit]

AfDs for this article:
KC Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He does not seem to be notable. Besides being an associate producer on Howard Stern, he has no notable roles JDDJS (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree, not notable adn since the article was created for the second time, best if an admin protects the article from creation after deletion.--Stemoc (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa Village Project[edit]

The Africa Village Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. The only non-affiliated reference is a very short article from the Vancouver Sun; the other references do not directly concern the topic of the article. I tried looking for sources, but it turns out there are lots of aid projects with the same or similar names. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nominator says, the only independent source supporting the article is a short paragraph in the Vancouver Sun. WP:NONPROFIT is relatively non-onerous to meet, but this article is never going to reach the threshold. Sionk (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vivostat[edit]

Vivostat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability. Unsourced for years, COI creator, related Platelet Rich Fibrin was CSDed. Widefox; talk 12:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saltine aka The Mad Rapper[edit]

Saltine aka The Mad Rapper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recording artist. After investigation, I believe the topic fails WP:N/WP:MUSIC since I can't find reliable sources covering the topic as required. Unless anyone else can, the article should be deleted. The most notable claims from the article are:

  • He enjoyed "global airplay". I find no sources to support that, but wouldn't really know where to look
  • One of his songs was used in a notable TV series, supported by a tv.com link
  • "Garned high praise from widely respected Billboard magazine" -- the best I can find about this is a digital image of that praise, but neither the song nor the artist seem to be listed at billboard.com at the moment.

Amalthea 19:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whale Fest[edit]

Whale Fest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is borderline speediable as promotional. There's a few local mentions of the event, and it shows up in a few tourist books, but nothing in-depth or significant that I could find. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. While I personally find this interesting, it's more appropriate to Wikivoyage. There's not nearly enough to indicate notability.--Larry (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; insufficient evidence of notability, relies only on primary sources. Only a few reliable sources about this topic. Jinkinson talk to me 17:31, 18 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friend Me[edit]

Friend Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested as "well sourced", but all of the sources come from within a 2 month span, except for a one sentence blurb from July. Given the extremely narrow window of coverage here, I say delete or merge to List of television series canceled before airing an episode. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that unaired TV shows are an odd topic for an encyclopedia, but there are ample sources to establish notability and verifiability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, ample coverage in large media outlets. --Soman (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IText[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IText (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of notability. Not a single independent source is referenced, and searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage. For example, the first page of Google hits consists of the following: pages on the web sites of the company that produces iText (itextpdf.com) and of its author (www.lowagie.com); this Wikipedia article; a download site; Twitter; a forum post by Bruno Lowagie, the creator of iText; and a page about something completely different called "iText", unrelated to the subject of this article. The article has been tagged for notability and independent sources for 16 months.

The article was previously taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IText in June 2009. In that AfD an editor wrote "I think the fact that a book has been written about this ... is enough to establish notability of this library". Other editors uncritically accepted this, and the discussion was closed as "speedy keep" after less than 24 hours. However, the book was written by Bruno Lowagie, who is both the creator of iText and one of the owners of the company that produces it. (See http://itextpdf.com/staff/bruno_lowagie, which says "Bruno Lowagie is the original developer of iText. He and Ingeborg Willaert are the founders/owners of the iText companies.") Writing a book about your own product does not make it notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A weak keep, but a keep. The two editions of the book do speak to the subject's notability, although it would be better if the book and the articles discussed the subject in academic terms rather than act as "how to" manuals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain how writing and publishing a book about your own product indicates notability? Not according to my reading of the notability guidelines, nor according to my idea of common sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established by book, [7] and [8]. These are all from the Further reading section of the article. I don't understand why the nom does not consider these to be independent. ~KvnG 18:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't understand why a book written by the owner of a business about that business's product is not an independent source? In that case, I am at a total loss to imagine what you think the word "independent" means. As for the two pages that you link from the "further reading" section, I was not regarding those as "references", since they do not support any of the content of the article. Nevertheless, I suppose I should have mentioned them. They are both more or less "how to" pages for developers who may want to use iText. They are some indication that iText has received some attention, but they fall far short of the kind of substantial coverage required to establish notability. They are, in fact, typical of the sort of thing which can be found about thousands of obscure software products, for which that someone somewhere has written a page telling readers that they can use that software if they want to. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your note about the book above and didn't look carefully enough myself. Definitely not independent. I agree that the other two sources I cited are not particularly strong. This puts it on the fence for me. I still can't support deleting this but withdraw my Keep position. ~KvnG 14:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep IText is one of the primary PDF-libraries (do your homework!). If the current article is not independent enough, then contribute to it, instead of asking for deletion. Notability: Googling on itext currently yields 945000 results. If you compare that to many of the software listed on List_of_PDF_software then I do not understand your problem, unless you consistently want to delete all those as well. How many of that software have published books? It seems the independent publisher thought this open source package was notible enough to publish about it. Article improvement: yes, delete: No. 78.20.18.96 (talk) 09:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — 78.20.18.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep Added some more references to the article. I think a library like iText is notable enough to stay on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raivenblade (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The proposal for deletion was posted in the exact week Deloitte would announce the ranking of the Fast 50 in the Benelux. If the moderator had taken the time to read the blog, he would have known that iText was selected by Deloitte as one of the fastest growing Technology companies in the area. As iText scored high in the competition (with a growth percentage of 2625% in 5 years), it was mentioned in several newspapers, see the recently introduced press page on the site. You may not be able to understand what the newspapers say (they're in Dutch), but you'll surely recognize Bruno Lowagie in the pictures. You may want to read the about page, along with some of the testimonials. Remember that the people at iText are engineers, not marketeers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.169.83 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Using Google books, it was fairly easy to find a number of books by other (independent) authors, among others Rod Johnson, who created the Spring_Framework, that discuss iText as one of the notable PDF libraries. I've added five to the "Further Reading" section. IMO the argument that "notability of iText" can't be established by a "book about iText" because the author is also the "creator of iText" shouldn't be used by somebody who isn't a published author. Getting a book published, especially by a publisher such as Manning, isn't easy. Publishing a paper book is a costly operation. The author and the subject of the book need to be endorsed by independent people from the industry, otherwise the book won't be printed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.184.132.60 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — 37.184.132.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep This page should be kept. iText is *the* PDF library in the Java world. It has existed for a very long time now and is good enough to assure that there is virtually no competition in Java PDF libraries.

It is a good library as proven by all the other software which is built using it, including many other open source projects like jasper reports, BIRT, flying soucer etc. If you look at stackoverflow, there are 6500+ questions about iText. Markmail contains 12500+ messages about iText... Joachimvda (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia Ohloh's global statistics [are] used to identify [the open source projects] with the most extensive continuous revision control histories, and Ohloh states that iText has a mature, well-established code base. These are facts from an independent source that is accepted by Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia, the Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO) is an algorithmic software cost estimation model, and based on this model, iText has an estimated cost of 300 man years (source: commits between 2001 and 2013). An anonymous mod has asked for more references. These were provided. Another anonymous mod has asked for inline references from reliable sources. These were provided. One can not claim that iText is not notable, without at the same time claiming that Ohloh, COCOMO, PDFtk, Rod Johnson, Matt Stephens,... are unreliable sources, algorithms, people, unless one is unreliable himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.187.130 (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Bruno Lowagie. I'm the original developer of iText, the author of two books about iText, and the CEO of the iText Software Group, consisting of three companies. I'm not familiar with all the rules on Wikipedia. I know that I'm considered being partial as far as the iText page is concerned. I understand that Wikipedia has a strict policy about contributions that smell like a conflict of interest.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Wikipedia allows people who wish to remain anonymous to decide whether or not a page on Wikipedia should be deleted. I didn't know it was Wikipedia's policy to put product pages on trial by an anonymous judge without granting the product owners the right to defend their product. If I understand correctly, I can't even raise the suspicion that the judge is partial.

Am I even allowed to post my arguments? I don't know, but for what it's worth, here they are:

  • First argument: "a book written by the owner of a business about that business's product is not an independent source." That would be true for books that are self-published. Anyone can pay to get his book printed. Anyone can start writing an ebook. However: not anyone can get his book published by a renowned publisher, let alone getting permission to write a second edition. No publisher will want to publish a second edition if the first edition wasn't a best-seller.
  • Second argument: there's a message on top of the iText page on Wikipedia asking to "please improve" the page. Instead of marking the page for deletion, why didn't somebody at Wikipedia do the effort of searching Google books for references to iText? I see that some books were already added, I know more books that have chapters about iText (an SAP manual, Hadoop in Action,...), but can I add them? Or will that be perceived as a conflict of interest? Which books are accepted? Are authors such as Rod_Johnson_(programmer) authoritative enough?
  • Third argument: "searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage," but there are over a million hits when one searches for iText on Google. Isn't it normal that the first couple of pages refer to me as I'm the authority when iText is concerned. Since when is being an authority on your products a bad thing? Why are the thousands of other hits to pages written by independent sources being ignored? For example James Gosling's blog, isn't James Gosling trustworthy enough as an independent source?
  • Fourth argument: if one reads the iText page, one finds links to a number of other pages, such as for instance the Pdftk page. PdfTk is nothing more than an obsolete version of iText compiled to an executable using the the GCJ GNU Compiler for Java. The few external references on that page also count as references for iText (since PdfTk is a wrapper for iText), yet only the iText page was marked for deletion and not the PdfTk page. The Windward_Reports page is waiting for reliable sources since December 2009, yet that page isn't marked for deletion in spite of the fact that there's a reference to it on the iText page. Is iText being singled out?

I am NOT a troll. If you have a problem with my arguments, explain. If you can't explain, please remove the "marked for deletion" message from the iText page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Lowagie (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) — Bruno Lowagie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for making your case. You certainly are allowed to so long as you disclose any potential conflitc of interest, which you have. I have changed my opinion back to keep based on your argument for independence of your publisher and the new book sources added to the article. [9], [10], [11] and [12] all appear to be reliable sources and there is significant coverage of iText in these sources. ~KvnG 21:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, a good bit of work has been done on the the article and a number of sources have been added. The PDF Hacks and Expert One-on-One J2EE Design and Development books are both in-depth reliable sources with authors that are as far as I can tell independent of the iText creator or company. The articles Generate PDF files from Java applications dynamically, Dynamically Creating PDFs in a Web Application and Tools of the Trade, Part 1: Creating PDF documents with iText all look like relaible sources that treat iText in some depth. With multiple in-depth reliable sources, notability, per WP:GNG, has been established. The article itself has problems with promotional prose, but fixing this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which parts sound promotional so that they can be removed or changed. Note that I'm hesitant to remove inline citations that sound promotional, as that would reintroduce the issue raised by BDD. Can the issues that have been fixed be removed from the page? The article no longer relies on references to primary sources. Inline citations have been added, but it's not clear if the work that has been done is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.20.93 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a good bit of work to be done to get rid of promotional stuff and convert to an encyclopedic style. For instance,
  1. Google Trends shows web searches for iText and iTextSharp dominate all other open and closed-source competitors. from the lead was clearly promotional; I deleted it.
  2. It was a complete rewrite with new examples. With more than 7,000 copies sold, it's the second best-seller about iText. is promotional. The citation for the second sentence was to sales figures at the iText website--most definitely a primary source and unreliable.
  3. The Features sections reads more like a sales brochure than a neutral description of the software.
  4. The third paragraph in the lead looks promotional for the books.
--Mark viking (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK! From the history, I see that this part was added by Duff Johnson who is a board member at AIIM and the vice-president of the PDF Association. He's also active in different ISO committees for PDF. He has a long record of Wikipedia contributions in the field of PDF, so please take his view into account even though he didn't cast a vote on this page in his own name (he may have cast his vote anonymously).
  2. OK! I removed With more than 7,000 copies sold, it's the second best-seller about iText. I don't think anyone will mind.
  3. I'm not sure how to edit this. The description matches the actual features and it's much shorter than the functionality description on the iText site.
  4. That's a literal quote from a review. I shortened it. It's no longer a literal citation, but it sounds less promotional, and less awkward, for instance This second edition should have been changed into The second edition.
Regarding 3: who should edit the features list? Is this a task reserved for a Wikipedia moderator? Or is this item listed as a TODO for somebody at iText? I'm the original developer of iText. The feature list that is currently shown on Wikipedia, reads like a rehash of what I've written on page 5 of the second edition of "iText in Action." I could rewrite that part. I could add a couple of graphical elements, such as the architectural schema or the Create, Adapt, Maintain, Inspect circles, but I don't know if this would be considered as promotional. I would appreciate some clear instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Lowagie (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 October 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. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ameriki tribe[edit]

Al-Ameriki tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is probably never going to meet the notability criteria. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This joking Iraqi nickname for Americans has occasionally received passing mention in reliable sources, but I have been unable to find any significant coverage discussing it in any detail at all. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 15:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion. Transwiki it to Wiktionary? --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN; Arxiloxos is right, this is a term which could appear in Wiktionary if it's not there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there any Arabic version of this? (most of all, what term is used for 'tribe?) Just calling someone 'Amriki' just means 'American'. Btw, in Arabic it's 'Amriki', not 'Ameriki'. --Soman (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no transwiki. No notability for Wikipedia, and doesn't seem to meet Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion either. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:25, 24 October 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 My Island. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Win[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable and non-notable EP Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 10:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - nominator does not make a valid argument for deletion. "Unremarkable" is not a policy-based deletion rationaile. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 10:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better, but "It's not notable", without further explantion, is considered an argument to avoid. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 18 October 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 International Fight League. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Sabres[edit]

Tokyo Sabres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established. Unreferenced - unsuccessful team within defunct short lived promotion Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the teams have the same issues.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 18 October 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 Unnao gold treasure incident. —SpacemanSpiff 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shobhan Sarkar[edit]

Shobhan Sarkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite having references, this is a prime example of WP:BLP1E. It is not encyclopaedic, and should go Fiddle Faddle 11:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created Unnao gold treasure incident and much of the info related to subject will be covered in that article as he is known only for this incident. Abhi (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "BLP single incident". Shovon (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Article is about a Hindu Saint. More information about him would be available as Excavation of Unnao gold treasure incident continues. Though the article appears poorly written and sourced, it would be too early to consider it for deletion.Quartzd (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article falsely claims that the person is a Hindu saint. The person is however believed to be saint just by locals and not by all Hindus. Also, the man in question is not fit enough to be on Wikipedia based on his own life and achievements/or lack thereof. Niket ★ My Talk Page ★ 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Unnao gold treasure incident, he's a central player in the incident and we often redirect otherwise non-notable people to an incident they played a part in. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. Abhi (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect has no notability beyond Unnao gold treasure incident. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Unnao gold treasure incident. Shobhan Sarkar's dream has drawn comments from Bharatiya Janata Party, and the project has also attracted comments from some international media houses who have mentioned about Shobhan Sarkar. Shobhan Sarkar does hold a limited notability. If gold would not be digged out, the WP Article on Shobhan Sarkar may end up as a Stub, only. But, as Unnao gold treasure incident certainly meet WP:EVENT, I would like to suggest that We should Redirect Shobhan Sarkar to Unnao gold treasure incident. If the gold would be digged out in next 1 — 3 months, then We will revert the move and add tonnes of text to the WP Article Shobhan Sarkar, as then Shobhan Sarkar would met Wikipedia:Notability (people). ← Abstruce 20:48, 20 October 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 Islamic Society of Britain. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Awareness Week[edit]

Islam Awareness Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, really ought to be a redirect to Islamic Society of Britain who started it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with this extremely informative article. The only bad thing with this article is that it is continuously being attacked by anti-Islamic editors and their sock puppets. When it comes to sources, you don't need very much of them on this article because IAW website(under the supervision of British government) has relevant information.Lefnic (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG, and doesn't appear to have done anything particularly remarkable. However, I believe that Lefnic is correct when he says there is a sockpuppet problem. Will look into it further. — Richard BB 10:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with and to Islamic Society of Britain; no independent notability. GiantSnowman 10:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic awareness week is not just related to britain. other countries like usa and canada also have same events.Lefnic (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal[edit]

AFC-OFC Reorganization Proposal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is there such a proposal or is this just soapboxing on behalf of the article creator? (who in the past has argued to seemingly fictional entities) I notice on-line that the issue has been discussed, [13], [14], [15], but I see no concrete moves as suggested by the article. Soman (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sourced information on serious suggestions for reform should go in Oceania Football Confederation, but this is a non-notable, unreferenced (and badly-written) proposal that might just be the idea of the page creator. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Number 57 11:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If either organisation makes a concrete move to go ahead with the proposal (hence widely covered by the media) then a separate article would be acceptable, but at this stage, NN. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 02:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sounds like fantasy bollocks on behalf of the article creator. – PeeJay 19:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sounds like complete OR. Anything verifiable should go int the respective conference articles, no need for this speculativ fork. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not need its own separate article. JMHamo (talk) 16:33, 22 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Stirling (album)[edit]

Lindsey Stirling (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Album peaked at #81 on Billboard. It has one independent review; the rest of the citations point to music charts. Fails WP:NALBUM. LK (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Charted in multiple countries, found a couple other reviews which I've added. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to above, it's also sold well enough to go gold in 3 countries, top 2 US genre charts and 1 foreign chart, and merit a deluxe edition. I call that notability, especially from an independent artist. Nominator's reasoning needs some clarification as well; an album's peak position (or lack thereof) on Billboard is not a standalone indication of notability. Does LK have objections other than the tenuous one I pointed out or the better one that TenPoundHammer has already addressed? CaptHayfever (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path[edit]

South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Wales Coast Path opened in May 2012, joining up various pieces of coastal walkway around the entire Wales coast. The "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" doesn't exist and has never existed as a distinct entity, but is simply a section of the Wales Coast Path (administered by a number of local authorities). As far as I can see the official Wales Coast Path website divides the coastal path into a series of maps, including one for the South Wales Coast & Severn Estuary, but in my view that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. The given sources here that do mention a "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" [19] [20] are certainly not official in any way as far as I can see. The vast bulk of this article is a cherry-picked travelogue describing the route and the sights, falling into Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is only a small amount here that could possibly be merged into Wales Coast Path. Discussion about these path articles can be found at Talk:Wales Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 09:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a similarly poorly sourced travelogue about part of the Wales Coast Path:

Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep 1. This article does not contravene the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not parameters. 'Route and the sights' are allowed in Wikipedia; please re-read the above 'What WP is not'. All paths on Wikipedia that I have read describe the 'route and the sights'. This can and should not be a reason for deleting this article. I object to the use of the word 'travelog' in this case as nothing in the article has any commercial or ephemeral connotations to them; or if there are Sionk hasn't given one example. 2. Sionk notes that there are external websites which DO refer to the existence of this path are external, neutral, secondary and reliable. That is a reason for keeping it. 3. Sionk mentions that there aren't any official websites which refer to the 'South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path'. The 'Official' keepers, owner and administrators of the path are: Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities, the Ramblers Cymru and the Welsh Government, all of which refer to the 'South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path' as I have referenced elsewhere. 4. The article is part of an on-going Wikipedia project (Wikipedia:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! and the articles on each and every path will be developed in the next 12 months. To delete this article now is to preempt that project's outcomes. 5. There are 8 geographical areas, which are acknowledge by all. No one (as far as I can see) disputes that, not even Sionk; the question is: what extent does each area merit being called a path? In my view it would be absurd to have only 6 out of the eight on Wikipedia, rejecting two because they are new, and maybe are not yet fully established or do not have a 'clever' name such as the 'Pembrokeshire Path'. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - as well referenced passes WP:GNG. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unfortunately. User:Sionk is right. The only reliable source that refers to the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" and the "Gower and Swansea Bay Coast Path", is the Wales Coast Path site itself. The other two sites that mention it - http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/ and http://www.wales-coastal-path.co.uk/ - are unofficial and/or commercial tourism sites which should not be used as references here. Apart from those sites, none of the other citations in the article mention this path - they only refer to the Wales Coast Path as a whole. None of the local authority sites in the six authorities covered by this article mention the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary" path. Newport City Council, for instance, refers to the Newport section of the Wales Coast Path as the Newport Coast Path - no mention of the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary". I'm sure that the Wikipedia:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! project is worthwhile in theory, but note that in the project proposal here reference is made to the possibility that: "The project may be poorly managed in terms of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest and Notability policies resulting in negative community attention. Our assessment is that this is unlikely; the project is likely to be delivered by experienced Wikimedians and the project leader... has shown considerable understanding of Wikimedia UK’s problems with Gibraltarpedia. Since the project is part-funded by a grant from the Welsh Government’s Tourism department there could be a perception that the whole project is introducing commercial interests to Wikipedia.". Unfortunately, what seems to have happened, doubtless in an excess of enthusiasm, is that these two articles have been created prematurely, before there is any indication in reliable external sources of the existence of the two paths as discrete encyclopedia-worthy entities. The articles need to be deleted now, in particular to avert any suspicions that the project is motivated by the same commercial aims that led to the Gibraltarpedia controversy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I don't think even the Wales Coast Path website calls them this. Though if they are financially linked to the Living Paths! Project it wouldn't surprise me if they change the wording again shortly. These sections are currently called Region G and Region H. Sionk (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Region G is called "Gower & Swansea Bay", and Region H is "South Wales Coast & Severn Estuary" - http://www.walescoastpath.gov.uk/plan_your_trip/static_maps.aspx. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes exactly, the Tourist Boadr website divides the path into regions. Sionk (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...?? You're confusing me. The Tourist Board site doesn't, but the Coast Path site does. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm confusing myself, sorry. Because of the .gov.uk extension I assumed it was connected to a Wales tourist initiative. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that most of your arguments against these two paths have been rather confusing Sionk. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is barely a whisker away from being a personal attack. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Living Paths project has hardly begun, and it would be wrong to prejudice its development at this early stage. Hopefully it will grow to add much more information to Wikipedia. The description of the route is currently brief, but entirely factual; In no way would I describe it as a cherry-picking travelogue. The press pack which divides the path into 8 sections can be accessed via the web sites of Natural Resources Wales and their predecessor the Countryside Council as well as direct from the Coastal Path's web site.Lesbardd (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a press pack is linked from different sites doesn't change the fact that it is the only source that refers to these stretches of the path in this way. What needs to be done here is to support WP policies on notability and verifiability; whether that affects a particular project is, I'm afraid, not really relevant. The project should have established notability of the "South Wales Coast and Severn Estuary Coastal Path" before any article was created. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ghmyrtle - I'd say that you're pretty late in the day raising new and unsupported statements like these; these should have been voiced before raising an Article for Deletion discussion. Secondly, you have not presented any arguments as to notability or cited relevant Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates as is necessary. Please note that you should ' explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy' (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - how to contribute). I have proved imho that the Carmarthenshire Coast Path is worthy of inclusion (as per Notability, general guideline WP:GNG). The 'Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not' and your latest 'WP policies on notability and verifiability' policies, cited in favor of deletion, are not applicable (and certainly have not been proved); I have provided numerous sources here, and have made other changes to the article to address the issue. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. This is precisely the place where issues like this should be raised. It's distressing that someone given authority by WMUK to develop this project seems to be so sadly unaware of WP policy. Was I supposed, somehow, to guess that these articles existed, before I was made aware of them? Don't be absurd. I have explained, as has User:Sionk, why these two articles (not all the others) fail to meet standards of notability and verifiability - because only one reliable source - the Coast Path site itself, with its related press pack - refers to the two paths in the terms used in the articles. The only other sites you have mentioned are not reliable ones - they are commercial tourist sites which derive their information directly from the WCP. The paths themselves are notable as part of the Wales Coast Path, which has its own article - but what are not notable are those individual sections of the path which have been defined by the WCP for its own purposes. They should not have separate articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to avoid any doubt, the articles in my view fail WP:CFORK (as unwarranted forks of Wales Coast Path), WP:NOTDIRECTORY (the article lists tangentially related visitor sites besides describing the path itself), WP:NOTGUIDE (obviously), WP:NRVE (no independent evidence of the existence of the paths using the article names has been provided), WP:PROMOTION (promoting both the WCP itself, and through their very existence as freestanding articles seeking to promote the "Living Paths" initiative), WP:NOTTRAVEL (obviously and blatantly)... That'll do for the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB I would have nominated Carmarthenshire Coast Path for deletion too, but because is is a section of the Wales Coast Path bordering only one county, it's alleged identity is more ambiguous. In my view there's no proof that path exists either, other than a part of the Wales Coast Path. As Ghmyrtle has pointed out, each county not unsurprisingly promotes their section of the Wales Coast Path (I visited Penarth today and the tourist noticeboard at the pier promotes the "Wales Coast Path - Vale of Glamorgan"). Sionk (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmarthenshire Coast Path. Sionk (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge anything useful into Wales Coast Path. I'm a keen walker (who recently completed the Anglesey Coast Path, with vague plans of walking other sections) and I watch a lot of walk articles, and have watched and edited some of the articles in question. To my mind, the paths that opened significantly before the Wales Coast Path was complete (e.g. Anglesey and Pembrokeshire) have separate identities and histories that warrant individual articles, but I don't think that applies to the sections that had no independent existence before the whole Coast Path opened in 2012; anyway, the Wales Coast Path article is not so enormous that these subarticles couldn't be converted into sections of that article. I'm a little concerned that, while I'm sympathetic to its aims, the Living Paths initiative might lead to contributions that would be better suited to Wikitravel (to which I also contribute) than Wikipedia. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Two out of three keepers are primarily editors on the Welsh Wikipedia. This isn't in and of itself a problem, but the Welsh and English policies are in general somewhat different, or at least interpreted differently (as I know from trying to invoke an English policy there), and users coming from over there might not see things the same way. I don't know if this is at all relevant to anything though. Cathfolant (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain in what ways they are different? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try.
cy:Wicipedia:Anaddas ar gyfer Wicipedia seems to say mostly the same things as Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I interpreted this/these policies to say that lists of common phrases in a language were not appropriate, and I removed such a list from one article but was reverted by Llywelyn2000. I took this to the talk page, citing a clause in Anaddas ar gyfer Wicipedia that said Wikipedia was not a dictionary or handbook, a phrase that I think in the English does prohibit the content I removed, but Llywelyn disagreed, saying that the content was not in fact a dictionary or handbook entry and he didn't see a problem with it.
I could give another few examples but I think that's the most relevant here as it seems to point to a more inclusive tendency on cywiki than enwiki (I have seen similar 'common sayings' sections removed on enwiki) and a seemingly different interpretation of almost the same policy that is being cited here as an argument for keeping the articles or not. Again, I don't know how relevant this is to whether these articles actually should be kept or not. Cathfolant (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's interesting. Anyway, this is en:wiki, so we should stick to its guidelines, not those adopted elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - or convert into articles for each of the unitary authorities (ie 15 articles instead of 8. Bridgend council, for example, is very actively writing about the 'Bridgend Coast Path'). There is definitely more to say on an 870 mile path than can be sensibly said in one article. It seems to be generally accepted that some of those parts warrant an article, so the question of how to provide a sensible and accessible structure for more detailed editing on the path is at least a reasonable one to ask. The alternative is to have mystifying gaps along the path. Is the objection that the article name is not notable, or that the subject is not notable? If the name is the problem, then have a constructive discussion at Wales Coast Path. There is no shortage of published information about the path along this stretch of coastline, and as some of it only opened a week ago, and much of it less than 18 months ago, it is reasonable to expect that more will be published - so I am puzzled by the rush to remove the opportunity for the article to improve. RobinLeicester (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever people may think of coastal paths, Robin makes a very good point - reliable sources have written about this topic, and seem to be writing more about it. Regardless of whether some people don't like it, that's a fact. I would also like to see an explanation of the canvassing that occurred on this AfD, as noted above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, there are multiple sources about the Wales Coast Path (which, incidentally, is an excellent initiative). That's not the point (and nor is my support for the initiative). The issue is whether individual sections of the path, defined solely by the path's organising body for promotional purposes, should have separate articles within the terms of English Wikipedia policy. An interesting side issue is the funding relationship between the Wikipedia:GLAM/Welcome to Llwybrau Byw! - Living Paths! project, of which this and similar articles form an integral part, and the Welsh Government's "Digital Tourism Framework Project", as confirmed in this WMUK report - "Since the project is part-funded by a grant from the Welsh Government’s Tourism department there could be a perception that the whole project is introducing commercial interests to Wikipedia.". The relationship between Government-funded tourism initiatives, and the development of Wikipedia articles apparently with no purpose other than in support of such initiatives, created all sorts of problems for the Gibraltarpedia project, and I would not want to see similar problems arising in Wales. Hence, it's important that the issues are clarified at an early stage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the reliable sources? There aren't any, other than the Wales Coast Path website (a primary source). Much of the rest of the article is sourced to general information about the Wales Coast Path, or (in the example of the diversion around the River Kenfig) RobinLeicester looking at a map. Completely bizarre that experienced editors are suspending all basic Wikipedia guidelines with these two articles. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About canvassing, I don't mean to attack Llywelyn or anything but I'm not sure if this section on the Welsh village pump could be classed as canvassing or not; it seems to be an appeal to the Welsh community to come look at the debate (a few words I can't read unfortunately). I'm not questioning that it was good faith though. Cathfolant (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I put this comment in the wrong place? Cathfolant (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. It wasn't a comment in direct response to Demiurge1000. I simply changed the indent. Sionk (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sionk mentions: The issue is whether individual sections of the path, defined solely by the path's organising body for promotional purposes. There is no organisational body. The Wales Coast Path is not an authortity in it's own right; it's a description. The true authorities are the ones I've mentioned: Natural Resources Wales et al, NRW being the single environmental agency for Wales, an amalgam of Countryside Council for Wales, Forestry Commission Wales, and Environmental Agency Wales, together with the local authorities, the Ramblers Cymru and the Welsh Government as I have already mentioned. That one source, therefore has the backing of all these bodies. The use of these path names are also used by other websites and the terms, therefore, are widespread. Secondly, the project will teach wiki editing skills throughout Wales, the scheme of work concentrates on Cadw and Royal Commission listed buildings as well as creating articles on villages and other settlements which currently do not have an article. This will be seen on the Project page in the next few days. The only other element to the project is releasing content on an open license. Thirdly, RobinLeicester's suggestion is very reasonable and quite acceptable to me. Let's Keep this article and 'have a constructive discussion at Wales Coast Path'. I agree that the names are not yet established, and that as Les Barker suggests it would be wrong to prejudice its development at this early stage. Lastly, thanks to all for bringing this into the open; let's now have a little faith in this new and exciting project! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that is relevant to the question of whether the subject of this article exists as a freestanding article subject now. If you "agree that the names are not yet established", how can you justify the existence of articles about them? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having been accused variously of being an experienced editor, and of 'looking at a map', I find the need to at least defend the second charge. The published source in question has a large yellow box containing the words, "Wales Coast Path in development. River bridge not yet in place. Please follow diversion marked in green until further notice." I felt (rightly or wrongly) that this source, in conjunction with a secondary source describing the completion of the bridge and the (re)launch of the Bridgend Coast Path made for a notable and well sourced piece of information about the development of the path (And one which would seem rather too specific for the Wales Coast Path article.) I also note (to back up my suggestion that more will be written on the subject of the article) that Northern Eye Books are planning to include a 'South Wales' volume in their series of Wales Coast guidebooks. I can only therefore repeat the statement of the obvious, that South Wales and the Severn Estuary has a coastal path. That it is of note and interest seems well established. I note that the title has received objections, and also, perhaps a related project which was mentioned above - about which I know little - worries some people, (but I don't see how it relates to the merits or otherwise of the proposed deletion). I agree that some (perhaps much) of the content needs to have its promotional waffle removed, and that (like more than a few articles) it is not yet a fully-formed encyclopaedic article, but I don't see why that requires the article to be swept away. RobinLeicester (talk) 22:40, 25 October 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. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1994 North American cold wave[edit]

1994 North American cold wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yes, it was cold. But what makes this single day event notable? The Banner talk 09:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep as nominator. Author changed a poor, sloppy thing in a real article. Convinced of worthiness now. The Banner talk 20:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead-end job[edit]

Dead-end job (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a sociologist, I often find myself defending similar articles from deletion. This is because they are usually notable, academic terms. This one, however, seems to me like a media/popular culture term of about as much notability as "crappy job" or such - a term that is not used by academics, and that has no potential for being anything but a redirect. This topic is covered in more properly named articles, from Wage slavery to McJob (where I'd suggest redirect it). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that dead-end job and McJob are largely synonymous. There are difficulties with a redirect, however. One is that the former is the much older term, in more common use (even on a superficial Google search that will bias toward the most recent usage) and self explanatory in a way that the other is not. The other is that McJob has very specific connotations which that article necessarily needs to devote considerable space to discussing, which then skews the article away from the more general issues. I disagree with the nom that these are superficial or adequately dealt with at Wage-slavery (which is not the same thing). So his logic would point toward merging McJob to the present article. My own preference would be to keep and expand Dead-end job (on which much could be said from an economist's as well as sociological perspective) and have the McJob article cross-referencing to it and dealing with the specific aspects of that particular term. --AJHingston (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm not entirely convinced this should be kept (I have some WP:DICDEF concerns) but I really don't think it should be redirected to McJob or Wage slavery. A "dead end job" is specifically a job where prospects for progression are limited. On the other hand, half of our own McJob article focuses on the fact that a McJob is quite often the very opposite and that many who start in "menial" jobs at McDonalds (and other comparable organisations) end up in very senior positions. In a lot of cases it would be fair to apply the term "dead end job" to an entry level job without the same professional development and progression opportunities offered by McDonalds by comparison. Like AJHingston, and ironically unlike the subject of the article, I think this article has potential. Stalwart111 09:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of the nomination that this term is not used by academics is false. See Dead-end jobs and youth unemployment; Are women over-represented in dead-end jobs?; Low-wage careers: are there dead-end firms and dead-end jobs?; &c. Warden (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for examples examining the topic as in Stacie, [2] or the definitional entry for dead-end job in Hodgson and Sullivan? [3]? Either more than satisfies the normal requirements for Wikipedia, and there are plenty more examples from a search in Google Books. We need to distinguish in this discussion between the present state of the article and its potential - it is the latter which matters at AfD. --AJHingston (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could see the Hodgson and Sullivan def, but sadly Google refuses to offer preview to me on this one :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have refreshed the link above, so perhaps you will be able to view it now. I make no especial claim for it but picked an example of how the term is understood by some writers. The distinction is made there between 'dead-end' and 'entry-port' jobs which brings us to the debate above about where McJobs fit. Academics, politicians and others will disagree amongst themselves about aspects of this topic, of course, so the issue here is not whether we can improve the definition but whether it is notable as a term and has the potential for a good article taking in the different perspectives. --AJHingston (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still cannot access it, but it seems like a good source. If you could expand the article using this source as a ref, I think it may bring the article to a point where this AfD could be safely dismissed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that the link does not work for you, as it was generated by Google. I am out of my comfort zone with this article - it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said on the topic from economic and sociological perspectives, so more in your field. Aside from the obvious negative connotations, there is the argument that their existence improves employment levels, lubricates the labour market, the jobs may be fulfilling for the individual, provide employment experience, are inherent in the nature of the diversity of requirements of employer and employees, etc. But I will think about how to improve it quickly without much effort, though it is not my first priority at this moment. --AJHingston (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The References link to Daily Mail Tabloid Articles and to what it refers to as "Dead-End Jobs" Seem Trivial. --William Wright (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the other links discussed in this AfD debate, or are you basing your decision solely on the Daily Mail reference? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See below for updated !vote - Pointillist (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Delete. I'm afraid this concept hasn't been sufficiently documented by reliable sources. I did a good-faith search (including google books, google scholar, site:edu, site:ac.uk, site:economist.com) and there's no doubt the term is widely used. But all the uses I found were informal, e.g. this academic paper is titled "Stepping Stone" versus "Dead End" Jobs—using quotes to indicate that the term is common parlance rather having a formal meaning in that discipline. Likewise, I saw plenty of mentions in popular culture – the title of abook by Ingrid Reinke, a younger readers book by Vicki Grant, an adult-literacy story by John Goodwin, and this 2010 movie – but none of those seemed sufficient either. Happy to be over-ruled on this. Do not redirect to McJob: that's a different concept. - Pointillist (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I managed to untangle AJHingston's google books link. The key here is to search for stepping stone, which finds comparisons to dead-end jobs (sources follow). The two concepts should be described and contrasted in a single Stepping stone vs dead-end jobs article, IMO. McJob should remain separate. - Pointillist (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles C. Brown (1982), "Dead-end Jobs and Youth Unemployment", in Richard B. Freeman; David A. Wise (eds.), The Youth Labor Market Problem: Its Nature, Causes, and Consequences, pp. 427–452, commended here by Ronald G. Ehrenberg
  • Helen Connolly; Peter Gottschalk (December 2001). "Stepping Stone Jobs: Theory and Evidence" (PDF).
  • Randy Hodson; Teresa A. Sullivan (2012). "The Social Organization of Work" (5th ed.).
  • Stacie A. Bosley (2004). "Dead-End Jobs Or Stepping Stones? The Long-Run Consequences Of Early Industry And Occupation".
  • Molly Dahl; Thomas DeLeire; Jonathan Schwabish (April 2009). "Stepping Stone or Dead End? The Effect of the EITC on Earnings Growth" (pdf).
  • Alison L. Booth; Marco Francesconi; Jeff Frank (October 2000). "Temporary Jobs: Stepping Stones or Dead Ends?".
  • Giovanni S. F. Bruno; Floro Ernesto Caroleo; Orietta Dessy (July 2012). "Stepping Stones versus Dead End Jobs: Exits from Temporary Contracts in Italy after the 2003 Reform".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 SAFF U-16 Championship squads[edit]

2013 SAFF U-16 Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of mainly non notable players for an under-16 years tournament, some of them will become notable, but the sqauds for this tournament are not the subject of significant independent coverage and fail WP:NOTABILITY. Fram (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - LISTCRUFT. GiantSnowman 09:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable list. No chance of any of these players having their own article any time soon bar the one who already does. Would be more useful and concise to add a link to an external source in the championship article. Fenix down (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have 2012 UEFA European Under-19 Championship squads so what mistake this article has done?RRD13 (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is both for a more limited (geographical) scope, and a younger age, making the notability of the tournament and the squads a lot less than for the U19 uefa championship. Fram (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mortad (band)[edit]

Mortad (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempts to bring article up to WP:NBAND failed. Sam Sailor Sing 09:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aquiles Delle Vigne[edit]

Aquiles Delle Vigne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much lifted verbatim from the official web pages of Aquiles Delle Vigne. Subject is probably worthy of an article per notability guidelines, but the article does not provide the necessary citations to document this. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The material used is promotionally worded: "prestigious Grand Prix" "vast discography" "leading teacher" and so on. The material may have a Wikipedia-compatible license but that doesn't mean it meets content policies. I recommend WP:TNT—it's probably better to start from scratch with original material, rather than taking freely-licensed but promotional material from elsewhere. RainCity471 (whack!) 19:58, 23 October 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. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter S. Bowman[edit]

Walter S. Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources in the article fail to demonstrate/assert any notability, and there is nothing but trivial coverage elsewhere that I was able to locate. The Oregonian's historical archives have a total of one article, which is a short (7 sentences) obit focused more on the car crash than his life. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has to be several, and the UO is the archives, not a gallery or museum (basically his family donated his items to the school). If there are other notable museums/galleries where his works are part of permenant collection, so be it, but there is nothing in the article cited as such. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the cowboy and cowgirl are separate institutions. The UO has a number of galleries and museums,[22] I'd have to google to find which he is held and exhibited in. Understood about the archive but they seem to display works there and have his works in multiple collections, major universities galleries and museums are notable institutions, and being archived in one adds to notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Cowboy and Cowgirl are two separate institutions, so his work is held by two major institutions, he passes notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the article is now well developed (thanks to Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs)) and certainly documents what seems to be a reasonably notable person. Aboutmovies might have been influenced by relying on online sources, but since Bowman died in 1938, his information would be expected to be mostly in pre-1950 publications, still something of a "dark ages" for internet information. —EncMstr (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Beach Boys solo discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Beach Boys solo discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one link on this page actually takes you to a discography page. One can link to any of these articles from any related article from Template:The Beach Boys, rather than going to an entire different page first. Then the Brian Wilson discography page can just replace this page on the navbox. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This list seems unnecessary since readers can already easily navigate the various members' pages within the Beach Boys navbox. I agree that the one discography page that exists (Brian Wilson's) can then be added there.  Gong show 20:52, 25 October 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_television_series_canceled_before_airing_an_episode#E. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ev and Ocho[edit]

Ev and Ocho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television series that was cancelled before an episode even aired. Is otherwise unremarkable. List_of_television_series_canceled_before_airing_an_episode#E says everything there is to know about it, so redirect there. Beerest355 Talk 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. There's nothing out there to show that this cancelled show ultimately merits anything other than a mention on the specific page mentioned. On a side note, you can redirect stuff like this without having to go through an AfD if you want. If someone contests it then you can make an AfD, but eh- no harm no foul. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 18 October 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) 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London College of Contemporary Arts[edit]

London College of Contemporary Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The article is sourced entirely to its own website or those of its partner institutions. Some relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Fashion and Design London. Created by obvious COI editor LCCArts, subsequently edited by blocked sock Chernenkaya under at least two names (more have been submitted for investigation). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found a single mention of this school in Times Higher Education. The school is not listed as a degree-granting institution by HEDD, nor is it on the list of authorized visa sponsors. What they offer is an "intensive 6-8 months Foundation programme" that "prepares you for entry onto a Higher National Diploma or Bachelor programme."[23] The Viking (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet -- perhaps delete. Preparing for HND or a BA suggests that it is seekiung to be in the further education college sector. Before I accepted this as a legitimate college, I would want to see evidence of a substantial number of students; and that they are engaged in fulltime courses. The omission from the Visa sponsors and its having an "org.uk" not "ac.uk" web address suggests to me that it is not meeting these criteria. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would concur with that. There are too many suspicious aspects of this school. Even if we take what they say at face value, it's not a degree granting institution. So at best it is only marginally notable. The Viking (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The status and activities of this entity cannot be verified. It cannot sponsor students for visa purposes nor is it officially registered in the UK for educational purposes so far as searches have so far revealed. --AJHingston (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Peterson (writer)[edit]

David Peterson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Internet writer with no indication of notability. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the only reason I created the page in the first place, that he coauthored an extensive critique with Edward S Herman on Steven Pinker's book The Better Angels of Our Nature. MartinSpacek (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Writing one review essay generally does not make one notable. Especially if one is one of two authors. I am sure there are exceptions, but I don't see one in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bang girl group revue[edit]

The bang girl group revue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this band is notable per WP:MUSIC. Nor does it appear that the references cited are sufficiently reliable sources, see WP:RS. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few reviews though positive, don't establish the importance of this musical act. The coverage simply doesn't exist at this time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They seem to meet the first guideline on Wikipedia:NMUSIC with a few independent reviews. __Elaqueate (talk) 10:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While they have a few independent reviews said reviews must be non-trivial and provide significant coverage. Mike (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Spit on Your Rave[edit]

I Spit on Your Rave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 02:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 17:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/incubate/potential merge of some information to The Big Chill (music festival). I can't find where there's any true in-depth coverage of this. I can find plenty of mention of it in relation to the music festival and the record breaking, but not much else. If not for the 2012 mention that this might become a weekly series, I'd say that this was just a film that stalled and died before it was ever truly completed. I do want to mention that this has been optioned but not formally picked up as of yet, so this isn't a guarantee. However that said, there's enough here to justify an incubation or userfication if anyone wants to go that route. There might be a slight justification as well to make a small subsection in the main article for the festival for the record breaking attempt and mention this film there, then redirect to that section. The record breaking seems to have been set up specifically for this film, ([24]) so it'd be reasonable enough I think to mention this at that article. There's enough coverage of the actual gathering in relation to the movie to where I think this would be justified. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the requisites of WP:NFF. Principal filming has completed and the project has received coverage.[25][26][27][28][29][30][31] We can reasonable allow continued expansion and development of this article. Apparently some scenes were done in 2009 and yes, enough zombies were gathered to became an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records for the "Most Amount of Zombies Captured on Camera".[32] Further, while the film was supposed to release in 2010, interest in the film has caused it to be re-developed into a weekly zombie television series.[33] No matter where else we might mention this film, it will take but a bit of work to change the focus of being about the completed film into one about the resulting television series... after all, Wikipedia IS a work in progress. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have requisites of WP:NFF? Project was abandoned in 2009 and seems the main goal of this project is get record in Guinness Book only. Moreover, former official site is dead strongly after end of The Big Chill 2009. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read perfect submission by Tokyogirl79. Did you see that film or you have that film? ABANDONED Project and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL should be deleted! Useful info (about notability of zombie event inside The Big Chill 2009) included in proper wiki-pages by Tokyogirl79 (Thanks). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but what you forget to address is that the completed film is becoming a episodic television series... and THAT development makes the "failure to be released" even more notable under guideline and policy. As we have sourcability that the project received coverage and was completed, CBALL is not applicable. As for for your emboldened "abandoned", as it is be turned into a TV series, that claim is invalid as well. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct is "Maybe turned into a TV series" (because it's statement from autumn 2012 News, not from 2013) and per last WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL IS applicable. Moreover, wiki-article I Spit on Your Rave is about film not TV-series. About COMPLETING: "that the project received coverage and was completed". Please give us any fact about this (links to stream, VHS, Video-CD, DVD, BD, etc. will be appreciable). --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 20:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes the 2009 article is about the film and makes no mention of later sourcable plans from 2012 for development as a television series. THAT might be seen as a reason to allow it to remain and be changed to take into account the news since 2009 OR for creation of a new article to be created about the series if/when it happens. In consideration of independent coverage from 2009-2012 under WP:NTEMP and WP:PRESERVE I'd be okay with redirect and partial merge to the film's star Noel Fielding. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you have recent news about TV-series? Now is 2013, not 2009 or 2012, etc.!! Mentioned fact (about announcing of TV-series) cannot be using as argument for KEEP this DEAD and UNCOMPLETED FILM project. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't miss. But... Who is Noel Fielding (his role)? Are you remember Lloyd Kaufman? So if Douggie-Dou acted in that film then film must be notable due to Douggie-Dou? Please, post any reliable news from December 2012. Also, Independent Coverage is outdated. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 23:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are agree with redirect and partial merge than type that. KEEP is not your truly opinion. Sorry, I'm laugh ;-) No more messages in that local thread will be posted from me. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 00:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)
  • Perhaps you might re-read the very first line of the article you wish deleted. Actor/comedian Noel Fielding is/was the star. His blue-linked name will lead you to the Wikipedia article on him and explain just who he is. His role, just as is found in the plot section of the article you wish deleted and in sources found through a brief search,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] is/was King of the Zombies (atypically fast-moving and coherent) and organizer of a music festival to keep the zombies entertained after all humans-as-food had been exhausted. As still-exiting coverage is in relationship to and confirms his role in the film, redirecting to the actor and his career is sensible no matter the age of the sources. "Outdated" is NOT a criteria for determining what constitutes a reliable source for coverage from even 2009 or 2010, just so long as readers can access the sources for themselves. The idea of Wikipedia is to serve its readers. Had it existed, I would have been suggesting for a redirect to an article on Chris Boyle (director). As for your WP:WAX examples, I have found nothing on an actor or character named Douggie-Dou and I found nothing indicating Lloyd Kaufman having any part of this project. And please... I am not asserting a WP:INHERITED situation, and am simply offering a place where it makes sense per policy and guideline to speak of the topic of this zombie film if it is no longer seen as meriting a separate article. Special note: You might wish to re-read the third paragraph of WP:NFF. Even an incomplete, unreleased, or failed film project could still be determined as notable enough for an article if it has the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Per applicable guideline, a keep is still my first option. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe... sometimes I'll reading all mentioned things. But comedian (Noel Fielding) and as you say King of the Zombies (that info from photo or from reliable sources except old ones? Maybe somebody even seen ending titles? ;-) ) isn't the reason for KEEP this page. And this movie fails any checks per WP:NFF, especially for third paragraph due to existence (in past) Official Site [48] and after that we have broken requirement too ("films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself"). But we have info without their production itself! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 01:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not require onscreen credits. Fielding's role is established and confirmed by multiple reliable independent sources, and as long as a source is independent and reliable, its age does not matter. As for this article remaining... "should generally not have" does not mean "may NEVER have". Guideline encourages the use of common sense and occasion exceptions are allowed. I am reminded of a similar case from 2007 for Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse, another released non-film promotion which received a great deal of coverage and was allowed, after much discussion and an application of common sense, to have its own article based upon it meeting our basic notability guide. As an relevant example, it became the basis six-years-later for a 2013 feature film (and just as this one may itself later become an episodic television series, we do not demand immediacy). That ISOYR did not become a film as its production company originally wished does not dismiss or diminish the topic having received coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Once we have established the existence of a great deal of more-than-trivial coverage, we do not expect nor demand film topics remain forever in the headlines. This may be allowed to remain and receive continued growth and editorial attention under WP:N or even under WP:EVENT. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All your words it does not matter. Subject is article about FILM (MOVIE)! Title have no connection to any TV-series, event, etc. Film is ABANDONED! NOTABLE event included in proper wiki-page. So we have deal with 'HIGHLY NO NOTABLE ARTICLE! --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 14:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently you have not recently looked, and your use of emboldened caps for emphasis notwithstanding, but the "topic" of the now well-sourced article is about a trailer released to promote a proposed film by that title and about how and where it was filmed and how a record was broken during its filming and how it was hoped to be released three years ago and how it is now being redeveloped for a television series. As for notability, I invite you to re-read WP:N and its WP:GNG. Also pertinent is the third paragraph of WP:NFF which explians that even a film-not-released may still be a considered notable topic through coverage. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Roses[edit]

Dead Roses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 02:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 12:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I remember coming across this and being a little iffy about it when I cleaned it up. I did manage to find a lengthy mention of the film in a book, which pushes it to a weak keep for me. I wish that we had a review or something for it, as that's make it more of a confident keep for my liking. There are two local sources (NY papers), but we also have the NPR link as well as the 2007 book source, which makes me lean towards a weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 18 October 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 Ben Hibon. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A.D. (film)[edit]

A.D. (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 02:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ben Hibon. I found a lot of sources talking about the trailer, but only a few that talked about the film in depth. If anyone can work some magic and find just one review for the film, I'd be more than happy to change this to a keep. I think that this was released, so they've got to be out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more searching shows that I don't think that this was ever released, so I think it'd be best to redirect to Hibon's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Redirect to Ben Hibon. Apparently the coverage in 2009/10 was about the trailer and intended to encourage funding for a full length film. It can be spoken of and sourced at the director's article as part of his career. Allow undeletion or recreation if/when this is ever made and gets requisite coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 23:07, 18 October 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. will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Reich (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The 4th Reich (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion per WP:MOVIE. Result of checking notability is failed. Vanquisher.UA(talk) 02:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to the Incubator. As was concluded at last AFD, we have a sourcable topic still simply TOO SOON for mainspace. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify until shortly before its release. TOO SOON. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even on official Facebook-page stopped to publish progressing updates. --Vanquisher.UA(talk) 16:10, 24 October 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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manicure (song)[edit]

Manicure (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

incomplete and fraudulent Plmnji (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The song fails WP:NSONG. The cover photo looks to be a fan manipulation, and the article is getting loaded with copyvio and apparent-copyvio images. If the song is released or otherwise becomes notable, we can re-create from scratch. —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An unreleased song with no indication that it comes close to passing WP:NSONGS.STATic message me! 00:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. No need to delete, just redirect to the album article. The page was created to serve as a redirect until further expansion is possible. Most Lady Gaga songs have articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 18 October 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.
  1. ^ http://www.welovesoaps.net/2013/02/winners-4th-annual-indie-soap-awards.html
  2. ^ Bosley, Stacie (2004). Dead-end Jobs Or Stepping Stones?: The Long-run Consequences of Early Industry and Occupation. Food Industry Center, University of Minnesota.
  3. ^ Hodgson & Sullivan (2011). The Social Organisation of Work 5th ed. Cengage Learning. p. 108.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_October_18&oldid=1142630630"