Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saidy Janko

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

Contested PROD and PROD-2. Janko had some press coverage recently, but so have many other players during the summer transfer window and it's not a reason for this article to be kept in my opinion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as he's never played first-team football at senior level. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, standard non-notable youth footballer. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As the original prodder, I stand by my view that Mr Janko's article fails both WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTY. He has not received significant media coverage & the coverage he has received is based around his transfer which is considered no more than routine. He has also never played first team football for a fully professional side or played at senior international level. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ridiculous that this has even been nominated for AFD. This player's existence has been proven and sourced with links. Also noted that he plays for Manchester United, arguably the biggest football club in the world. Once again, I stress - KEEP FreelanceMOD (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The player's existence is not what is being debated here, we all know he exists. For a player to have an article on Wikipedia they must pass either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Neither of which he passes as he has never played first team football or received significant media coverage and coverage he did receive was all based around his transfer. The fact that he plays for a high profile club such as Manchester United bears no relevance when he fails both guidelines. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen many pages for youth players from various teams (and teams considerably weaker than Manchester United). It's beginning to look like there is an anti-Manchester United agenda creeping in here. I stress again to KEEP this article. FreelanceMOD (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter which club Janko plays for. The fact is he has never played senior first-team football, so fails notability. When he makes his Manchester United first-team debut, this article can be reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Guillermo Varela or Marouane Fellaini have played a game for Manchester United, and I don't see people AFDing their wiki pages, so what exactly is going on here? FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, Fellaini played first-team football for Everton and Belgium, while Varela played first-team football for his last club Peñarol, which makes them both notable. JMHamo (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreelanceMOD as JMHamo has said if/when he makes his debut the article can be restored with a click of a button. Please read other stuff exists as it is not a valid point to compare it to other similar articles across the project as a reason to keep. Both Fellani & Varela pass WP:NFOOTBALL as JMHamo has already explained. There is no anti Manchester United agenda here the only reason it is at AfD as it fails both general & specific guidelines. So please keep your accusations to yourself as future ones may get you blocked. If you have concerns over other football articles your welcome to PROD them yourself once you've read both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL or you can send me a list on my talk page. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Janko was previously at FC Zurich, what's your point? I reiterate my KEEP vote. FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reliable source for his appearances in the FC Zurich first-team... I can't find any. JMHamo (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I try to engage in a debate to keep a page of a Manchester United footballer and I'm being threatened with "block" warnings. Completely ridiculous. It seems this page is doomed either way, so why bother even having a debate when its fate is already sealed. Or is the agenda here to AFD a Manchester United player's page, wait for people to arrive and state KEEP, then get them blocked? And then to say there is no anti-Manchester United agenda at work here? Jesus Christ. I'm done here. Adios FreelanceMOD (talk) 17:59, 7 September 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) 04:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silat Cimande

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

This article about a martial arts style (part of pencak silat) has no independent reliable sources and fails to show notability. It doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A search failed to find enough significant reliable coverage for this martial art, only Blogspot pages promoting it and videos demonstrating it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two sentence article with no indication of notability. Primary sources and youtube videos don't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any if\nformation into Pencak silat if appropriate to add sats 11:49, 11 September 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. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Fighting Championship

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

This is an article about an MMA organization with one line of text and no references. There's nothing to indicate this organization is notable.Mdtemp (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references, no signs of notability outside of Australia. Fails all four tenants of WP:MMAORG. Luchuslu (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no indication of notability, and only external links are primary or to lists of events. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 11 September 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. KTC (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Eggink

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

MMA fighter with a total of 4 fights, none with a top tier organization. The fact she's about to fight for a title of a minor organization doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMA fighter is currently one of the topped ranked female fighters around and is expected to join the UFC if she wins her up coming bout JMichael22 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this fighter is currently one of the best female fighters in her weight class and is deserving of this wikipedia page regardless of how many bouts she has had she also has a history of Amateur bouts as well giving her a total of 12 or 13 Mixed Martial arts fights she is currently ranked as one of the top female Strawweight fighters in the world some sources have her ranked at #18 and #19 she is currently getting ready to compete for the XFC Women's Strawweight Championship and from there she might be given the opportunity to compete for the UFC once they start up there Strawweight division in the beginning of 2014. JMichael22 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not ranked in the top ten in her weight class according to the Unified Women's MMA Rankings, plus the UFC has made no guaranteed they'll expand to new women's divisions anytime soon. Amateur bouts also don't add much to her notability. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for an article. Luchuslu (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those rankings were before her most recent fight. Into the Rift (talk) 17:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JMichael22, please don't remove edits by other people as you did with Luchuslu's comment above.

Delete Has no top tier fights and isn't close to meeting WP:NMMA. The keep vote above involves a lot of personal opinion and WP:CRYSTALBALL with nothing to show subject meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is currently ranked as the #10 Strawweight fighter in the world by Fight Matrix also she competed in the 2007 Pan American games and is a former member of the USA National Boxing Team. Into the Rift (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted women's rankings are the Unified Women's MMA Rankings where she is not listed among the 15 strawweights [1]. In addition, if you look at WP:NMMA you'll see that rankings don't figure into MMA notability. There's also no evidence to show she's a notable boxer (WP:NBOX) and the article fails to show she meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of a boxing career in the article and being on a Pan-American team does not automatically confer notability. Women's boxing was not part of the Pan-American games in 2007 so I'm a bit confused by Into the Rift's argument. Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any notability requirements that I can see. People making up criteria because of WP:ILIKEIT doesn't work for me.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements - WP:NMMA says that there needs to be three fights for a reasonably large competition and I can't find them listed in WP:MMANOT. Adrianw9 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out to an Other Side

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

Notability is not established. Notability cannot be independently established or pass the test. Qwerty Binary (talk) 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Liam O'Flynn is among the most notable uilleann pipers in the world. He's appeared on numerous notable albums throughout his career. This is only one of five solo albums he's recorded and it is worth keeping. I've cleaned up the article, added references, and added one review. Bede735 (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the artist is notable, wouldn't a merge/ redirect discussion be more appropriate? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Out to an Other Side. Not notable but from a notable artist - there is a useful review in Billboard, but the AllMusic review is one sentence long. Since it's from 1993 there may be other print sources less easily accessible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article cannot be merged to itself — O'Dea (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/keep – The artist is a world-class uilleann pipes player and this is one of his very few albums. It was released before the World Wide Web was well established so finding media reviews establishing its notability online would be next to impossible. Such a notable album would certainly have been reviewed in newspapers and music magazines at the time of release, but the Irish Times, for example, one of the first media organizations to go online in Ireland, and one of the first 20 newspapers to go online in the world, did not do so until 1995, two years after this album's release. — O'Dea (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable album from a notable artist, several other of his albums are on wikipedia, as this one should be. Snappy (talk) 21:51, 12 September 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 Alexandra Burke discography#Extended plays. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Rules (EP)

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

This release is not notable per WP:NMUSIC. It does not have enough coverage to warrant its own page and this little coverage it does have (though reliably sourced) is not detailed. For example one of the two reviews is from Yahoo! but the author of the article is just someone with a Yahoo! email address (anyone can do this through the Yahoo! community). No proof of qualification to write such a review. Additionally a search of Google/Googlenews finds very little mention in sources other than the Daily Mail who distributed the EP for free (as did Burke's website) making the release ineligible to chart. No sign of any singles or promotion for the EP means it lacks coverage to be notable. Unlikely that it will gain any further coverage. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexandra Burke discography#Extended plays. If anyone wants to add track details there, fine. There isn't enough for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexandra Burke discography#Extended plays. I personally am against adding track listings to discographies when the album/EP was released as one entity, but if somebody wants to do it, I won't revert. T C N7JM 22:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn - user mistook vandalism for an actual article. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 20:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BFT

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

Unsourced slang term with no evidence of notability Drm310 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Further investigation shows that the page had been a disambiguation page before being vandalized.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TANCREDI

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No indications that this is anything but a run of the mill furniture manufacturing company. Many references, but most turn out to be mundane coverage such as business registration listings, patent applications, etc. A reference to a Time magazine article could not be verified (a search of Time's archives for the period in question yields no results). Other references are too vaguely worded to be properly verified. (E.g. a reference to "Vogue Home", a publication that cannot be verified -- is it a special edition of Vogue magazine, or something else entirely?) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really stupid argomentation, the Company exists and you can find tons of references on Google, Bing and Yahoo. I vote for keep it (maybe a few arrangmentes on the page are needed, but not deletion at all!) TiWikiInculoAssInTheDani61 (talk) 23:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made the base article and added a few of those reference. Unfortunately those publication you quote are Italian one, translation is not made properly (I don't think they need to be translated anyway). I will see if I can find the original articles to post you. Bless — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondDantesOfMonteCristo (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I found some of the sources that I used to do a thesis on this company when I graduated. I made a fast collage (forgive the quality, I have made it the phone just now ^_^ ) in which there are many of the references that are indicated in the article. I try to see if I can find others around (some of them I've had directly consulted in the library or in the company headquarter, and I do not have a copy), but I think these are enough. Here the link for the publications / references: [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondDantesOfMonteCristo (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The text is too blurry to read in these photos, but these all appear to be brief product blurbs for Tancredi's products, rather than significant in-depth coverage of the company, and do little to bolster the company's notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I vote to Keep the page

Comment Honestly it seems you have something against this company. The sources are there (you can increase the image size, (just click on the magnifying glass icon :D ). In Wikipedia you have tons of manufacturing companies that means less than this, you even have a Category for Manufacturing Companies of Italy Category:Manufacturing companies of Italy in which are present a lot of industries that doesn't meet the criteria you've listed above and don't have any references (see: Bombrini-Parodi-Delfino, Bonfiglioli, Pontificia Fonderia Marinelli, Baldelli ceramics just to indicate some of the tens). I think the article is rightful, I can agree it needs some improvement and that's what I expect from a person like you, not that mark it for deletion (you can see other users modify it before giving it a reviewed tag, and you are the first that ask for deletion).

~~I think the article should be kept, i've seen a few good adjustments have already been made, and maybe some more improvment can be done, but still it's a valid article.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marieudeparteu (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Marieudeparteu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: cross-wiki spamming. -Mys 721tx (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you clarify that for us a bit, Mys 721tx? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be enlightening to know that the Italian and Chinese WP articles have been deleted as spam [3][4], and that EdmondDantesOfMonteCristo and Marieudeparteu have also been working on Tancredi articles at fr.wiki, es.wiki. This looks more like a global promotion campaign than establishing encyclopedical articles. De728631 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the accounts above (already locked btw) belong to an unfit WP:PAID who went crazy after a speedy deletion on it.wiki starting massive vandalisms (half of the usernames he used in this RfD are definitely abusive). --Vituzzu (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more improvements on the page, so it now is pretty clear, with a neutral tone. Hope you appreciate this. Since this is a major Italian company, I don't understand all of this, but it's okay. Please check the page and tell me if something is missing or has to be improved. Thanks and bless you all guys! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondDantesOfMonteCristo (talk • contribs) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this is an article to maintain, since the company is very well known here in Italy. I have corrected the article so it is truly neutral now (there was still something that could make you think of an advertising content). Salvio661 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — Salvio661 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~just red the article, page it's okay, don't see any spam or ads, keep it CarloMarino (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)~~ — CarloMarino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

Thank you guys for all the advices! As I told before, this is a company that I did a thesis at the University of Padua, if it was not important they would not accept the thesis! I do not want to advertise Tancredi but I think it is one of the major Italian company (if you look in Google you will realize it) and thought it should stay on Wikipedia. If you want to remove the links or the notes it'ss fine but do not tell me that it is spam, or any company under 100 million in revenue should not be present in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdmondDantesOfMonteCristo (talk • contribs) 23:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think this is a proper article. Keep it. TiWikiInculoAssInTheDani61 (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think this is a proper article. Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.95.213.203 (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have semiprotected this AFD and stricken the votes of the checkuser Confirmed sockpuppets. No comment with respect to IP address(es)' votes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Blatant hoax, cross-wiki vandalism. Considering the fact the creator knows how to edit Wikipedia, and to create multiple accounts (including those that are blatantly attacking people) and change his IPs, I recommend to salt this page as well. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - obvious promo-spam from block-evading sock-puppets. All sources appear to be WP:ROUTINE government registrations, directory listings, WP:PRIMARY sources or catalogues. Having gone through the list, I'm yet to find an instance of significant coverage in a reliable source, let alone the multiple sources required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Tbnotch and Stalwart111. TimL • talk 17:21, 11 September 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) 04:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospec

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

As you can see this was AFD once before in January. (the other two AFDs listed appear to be unrelated) The result was to delete this, but apparently someone asked for this to be incubated because they felt bad about deleting it. that must be the reason since nobody has worked on it at all in all the time it has been incubating. Incubating is not just a way to help overly-sensitive users feel better about deletion, it is supposed to be a way to improve articles on subjects of marginal notability. So, we basically already had a consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia, but the closing admin acted on what I am sure they felt was a good-faith request to incubate it, not realizing it would just sit there for nearly nine months. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of indie game developers. Sounds like an interesting project, but I can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes much sense. If there are no reliable sources, then we can't, or at least shouldn't have any content per WP:V, so there wouldn't be any content there realted to this organization, making a redirect more of a misdirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my point was supposed to be that the existence is verifiable, though not through the standard of reliable sources used by notability. For example, WP:ABOUTSELF allows the use of self-published primary sources to verify trivial facts, but this would never establish notability. In trying to be concise, maybe my post was rendered seemingly nonsensical. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per Beeblebrox. Fails GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:15, 5 September 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 and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Lemański

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "Notable for one event only, though the criticism of anti-semitism and child abuse may just allow him to pass as inherently notable if built on and cited in reliable sources. At present there is insufficient notability asserted and verified in the article." This also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. The article is interesting, but is it a notable person and a notable biography? What inherent notability does he have outside this series of incidents? Fiddle Faddle 16:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. There is now sufficient new verified information in my view to justify the retention of this article. Fiddle Faddle 07:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE one event only. Also, a bit of a WP:Soapbox. Dloh cierekim 17:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If media write about this person as of A Symbol of Change in highly religious Poland, if Vatican Insider thinks this story captures nation's attention and has the whole of Poland on tenterhooks, if the Polish edition of Newsweek runs a cover story describing Lemanski as the "Church's No. 1 Enemy", if prez. Lech Kaczynski found him notable enought to deserve one of Poland's highest Orders, then KEEP... --Ivannnah (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE-- IT'S HARD TO SEE, BUT DELETION REQUEST HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN Dloh cierekim 14:28, 5 September 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 & redirect. If the redirect is undone, it can be reverted and the redirect protected if necessary. KTC (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Nackle

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect does not seem necessary or warranted, but I'm not opposed to it. It just seems a bit pointless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap and in this instance will lead readers to the information they seek rather than inspiring them to recreate this article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Too often people simply undo the redirect, leaving us back where we started, with an untenable article. I would personally like to see the article deleted, and then a redirect created over the old deleted version, but I think that idea makes some people squeamish. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms cities. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northkeep

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

This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons 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) 15:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms cities. BOZ (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per User:BOZ; this page has been a redirect twice already according to its history; there's enough information here for a small entry on the list, and it's a potential search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Forgotten Realms cities. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this kind of trivia. otherwise, fails WP:GNG - all the sources are non-independent primary sources and so the options are delete or merge (if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Forgotten Realms cities (if there is appropriate content), otherwise Delete. The absence of significant coverage from reliable independent secondary sources does not establish notability for the topic, which means there cannot be a stand-alone article, per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merging will do nothing to fix the fundamental problems of lack of sources to add any real world context on the subject. We simply end up with large ever growing merge targets that still have all the same fundamental flaws. Ridernyc (talk) 03:11, 8 September 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 Dungeons & Dragons deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barachiel (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Article lacks any third-party sources; the subject fails WP:GNG completely. - Aoidh (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Subject is completely non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this kind of trivia. otherwise, fails WP:GNG - all the sources are non-independent primary sources and so the options are delete or merge (if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there is appropriate content) or Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The absence of significant coverage from reliable independent secondary sources does not establish notability for the topic, which means there cannot be a stand-alone article, per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities#Archon paragons Web Warlock (talk) 12:43, 6 September 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) 20:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wellesley College Senate bus

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

Non-notable college shuttle service that has not received signifiant coverage outside of the colleges it serves. Claim to fame appears to be a passing mention in a Rolling Stone article. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article has twice before been nominated for deletion. Both ended up as no consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fuck_Truck (February 2006) and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wellesley_College_Senate_Bus (March 2006)
Please note that Wikipeida's policies and guidelines have evolved a lot since then. - Lentower (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting GNG per news and books. As Susan Orlean put it in Saturday Night, "the Wellesley Bus is a revered weekend institution of consequence in the greater Boston metropolitan area." [5]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability may be tenuous, but it's there and it isn't temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others; I say that from the media coverage the notability does exist. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to establish WP:N, including two national and two regional sources. Agree with other "Keep"s. Lentower (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Agatha Christie. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels

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

Delete: Almost entire article is unsourced or reliant on original research. Two years after surviving an AFD it became plain that the article could not stand as it was. Aside from the interesting lede, there is nothing of value or utility in its current stubbed form. If someone wants to recreate, fine. Quis separabit? 14:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agatha Christie, which already contains a substantial "themes" section. As I explained before, article deletion is not a punishment for poorly-written articles. If the topic were non-notable or unverifiable, those would be perfectly valid reasons to delete the page; however, being forced to revert to a version of the page you dislike is not (discussion here). I'm not opposed to keeping this article, especially if the "themes" section from the parent article were merged in here, instead; it seems to be somewhat notable and easy enough to research if one puts in the effort. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct is to Rename. While a focus on "tropes" is probably not the way to go, the analysis of Christie's writing is obviously a topic that has been widely covered and easily meets the WP:GNG. Whether the current version would be able to form a valid starting point for such an article or whether we are better off nuking and starting fresh would be a call for someone more familiar with the sources and Christie's work. (and I am not really sure what a good alternative name would be, either) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Agatha Christie#Formula and plot devices - if that section gets too big, we can fork it out but under that title, not this one. As it stands, the current article reads like a trivia fork. Ansh6 6 6 19:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Agatha Christie per Ansh666. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:24, 4 September 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. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Krumholtz

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

Despite claims in the article to the contrary, I do not see this individual as being notable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mike Krumholtz isn't notable enough according to Miami University, at least, not as Kate Voegele. Also, Elle Fowler isn't even famous enough to Miami University of Ohio. Chantal Kohl's Bernadette (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO. It's always best to ensure the subject meets notability standards before creating articles in mainspace. -- Trevj (talk) 09:53, 6 September 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. Apparent hoax. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weth (Norse Goddess)

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

No evidence that this article is based on anything verifiable. The Death of Wețtħ doesn't seem to exist, the articles on the Aesir and the lists of goddesses don't mention her, I can't find her in any book on Norse mythology. The article indicates that she "was never really noticed" and "was never remembered in Norse", which seems all too true. Fram (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I just did a web search of all pages placed online before 2010, and only three name Weth. One just names her without providing details, and two simply name Weth - Goddess of Anger without further information. One of these is on the page of a role-playing game and many of the post-2010 references are also to gamers adopting Weth as their role. In terms of books, the only one that appears to name Weth does so in the process of disclosing the Mysteries and Secrets of Numerology, so not exactly cultural anthropology or medieval literature. Norse Mythology A to Z fails to mention her, and at least one source, Frommer's Norway names the goddess of Anger Skadi. Many other books on Norse mythology don't name her at all. This may be a modern invention, but at a minimum is completely obscure and doesn't merit a page. Agricolae (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification can be added. It would seem that it is something close to WP:HOAX, possibly an invention by gamers. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax. She's obviously the Goddess of Needless Capitalization (a truly powerful modern deity with many followers) and of Flying Under the Radar, but she is Nótt Nótt's daughter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 7 September 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) 20:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Have I Got News for You episodes

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

Article fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. No sources for tables of information containing results of individual game show episodes. Article contents fall under WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT, and entirety of tables featuring scores & results are unreferenced. Details contained within <ref> coding are merely anecdotes or details about episodes—not links to sources that provide verification of score data presented in tables.

This is not a series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldomly notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are.

Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is how I know when episodes have aired and who was on them. If I want to watch an episode, I come here first to see if a new one has aired. If I want to watch an episode with a particular person as the host or on the panel, I check here to see which episode they were in. It's USEFUL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:0:89C0:27:1913:4FF9:46C9:EAE0 (talk • contribs)

Comment—Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and entirety of episode details within article is unsourced. AldezD (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these are reasonable lists to have. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument against deletion. AldezD (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For basically the same reasons that I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of QI episodes. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as mentioned at the QI episodes discussion, HIGNFY isn't a game show, it's a comedy panel show where the makeup of the panels is a matter of interest - 8411 people in the last month thought so, anyway. To compare it to "Deal or No Deal" and so forth is rather misleading. Bob talk 21:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Stating the number of times this article has been viewed over the past X number of days is not criteria that satisfies WP:GNG. The lists of score information and guests is entirely unsourced, and listing excessive statistics like this falls under WP:NOT#STATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to misunderstand WP:EPISODE which, as a guideline, tries to encourage list pages of this sort, rather than having pages for individual episodes. In any case, the guidelines are subordinate to our policies which encourage us to preserve content by considering alternatives to deletion. The overall topic of HIGNFY is very notable - the show is now a British institution and is in its 45th season. Some detailed coverage of this long run is appropriate and, per WP:SIZE, we should expect some spinoffs for this. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could use better sourcing, but it pannel games and game shows are different things. Rankersbo (talk) 19:22, 10 September 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. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Live Music & Distribution

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mostly find press releases, self-published sources, and blogs. Promotional. Bbb23 (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Article is sourced to subject's website and a PR. Absolutely zero coverage found elsewhere. Non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is related: Sean Guerrier De Bey. Smoke and mirrors. It's not neutral, the subject's notability isn't demonstrated by the references, and great liberties have been taken with the credits. (By the criteria used, every record company employee could list every record he/she worked on as a credit - as far as I can tell, De Bey isn't credited on any of the records that are listed here.) JSFarman (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and likely promotional. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:11, 6 September 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. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Girls For Charity

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

Fails WP:ORG. Essentially promotional. Bbb23 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Absolutely non-notable organization. No reliable sources at all exist to support notability. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another non-notable organization created by Billboarder22.JSFarman (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIVO contact

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

Not notable, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. No GNews/Book hits (all are in relation to medical subjects rather than email marketing). GHits are WP:SPS, social media, and ads. Promotional article. CSD declined by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 11:29, 4 September 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) 04:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election

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

candidates fail WP:POLITICIAN - 3 BLPs/1 Biog with no assertion of notability , alternatively they may or may not be notable and if so should be created as separate BLPs/Biog Widefox; talk 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:POLITICIAN is for finding the notability of politicians to create articles on them. An article can still be created to list candidates in an election. I don't like to format of the article though, and it should be converted into something like Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I agree. Let me explain my point better - this article (and to a minor extent the better one you've pointed out) are WP:COATRACKs for BLPs of non-notable people. A mere listing of names would be fine (that other article would benefit from the BLP info column removed). The lead of this article even intros as such. Widefox; talk 14:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While there may be disagreement on how much information should be included, the subject matter itself is clearly encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with these lists is that the consensus to allow this approach was established almost a full decade ago, when Wikipedia's content and notability and sourcing standards were very different than they are now — so while they were compliant with the standards that existed at the time, they are very much not compliant with the standards that are in place now. For instance, rules such as WP:NPF, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLP1E did not exist when this article was created in 2005 — but they are in force now, and they absolutely destroy everything these lists were originally designed to accomplish in the first place.

These candidate lists are quite simply not allowed to look like this article anymore, but instead have to look like Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election, namely a complete, data-only table with no allowance for anything more than extremely basic information about the individuals. (Even the "BLP column" that the nominator pointed out above isn't designed to be a "BLP column", but rather is only supposed to note extremely basic information such as whether the person was already an incumbent MPP or not; the only person in that list whose entry contains any significant personal information about them at all does so only because the person who added it has revert-warred me whenever I've tried to remove it on BLP grounds, and I just got tired of the fight.) But the older articles have never been properly cleaned up to remain compliant with the evolving standard — and even in the articles that are written in the contemporary table format, as you can see from looking at the 2011 list nobody has ever really bothered to actually complete it in anything like a comprehensive fashion. Those candidates' names and vote totals are already in Ontario general election, 2011 (candidates) anyway, so the separate list isn't adding anything of real encyclopedic value, and we don't need any other information about them beyond that — not their career, not their other political activities, not their complete electoral record over a series of unsuccessful elections, not any of it. So while it's outside the purview of this particular discussion, you could make a very real case that even the 2011-formatted lists aren't encyclopedically valuable enough to be worth keeping either.

And that's before you even consider the fact that the party ran 130 candidates in the 1995 election, but this article contains information about just four of them. If they're not notable enough to stand on their own as full, independent BLPs, then they're not notable enough for this level of coverage either. It violates WP:NPF, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLP1E for us to maintain any substantive personal information about any of these people in any article, so these old leftover lists simply cannot stand in their existing format anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY is only about what kind of particularly personal information we should be careful about including in articles, such as full names, birthdates, or contact info that is relevant to identify theft, as BLPPRIVACY makes clear in the beginning is its chief concern. It not only has nothing to say about any other kind of information or about who should or should not be covered at all, but does not even forbid the information it is concerned with but instead urges use of reliable sources and to err on the side of caution with removal requests. So BLPPRIVACY can never be a reason for deleting an article, only for line-item removals of certain limited facts.

And even if we could somehow characterize "being nominated for and running for public office" as an "event" (I think we cannot, without pretending "event" means "one thing of any kind or duration"), BLP1E "only applies to low profile individuals". And those who have chosen to be candidates for a provincial legislature cannot reasonably be considered "low profile." The whole point of BLP1E was and has always been to protect Joe Schmoe who is accidentally in the news just because an asteroid fell on his car or he randomly got taken hostage at the local Cracker Barrel. It's honestly ridiculous to try and stretch it to cover people who choose to run for a high-level government office, however unsuccessful they ultimately may be at that endeavor. postdlf (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E most certainly is understood to mean "one thing of any kind or duration"; at the very least, it's routinely applied in AFD discussions to people who are "notable" only for running as an unsuccessful candidate in an election. And running for a government office does not lift a person past BLP1E or NPF in and of itself — for one thing, a candidate's "notability" is limited to a single electoral district, and does not make them a "public figure" of anything more than purely temporary and purely local interest. Winning election to office lifts a person beyond the reach of those policies, because the person becomes notable for actually holding office rather than just running for it, and thus becomes a higher-profile topic of broader and ongoing interest to a much wider variety of readers — but being an unsuccessful candidate in an individual electoral district does not, in and of itself, make a person "high profile", nor does it turn them into a topic of sustained or meaningful provincial, national or international interest. It just makes them a low-profile person who tried and failed to become notable, which isn't the same thing at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"routinely [mis]applied that way in AFD discussions." I know, I've seen it misused in that way by AFD !voters, though as I have seen it is very rare for an AFD to actually be closed on that incorrect basis. And we are fortunate enough to be literate so we can read what BLP1E actually says and not be bound by others' past mistakes. Though the issue is, in a way, moot, because we're not dealing with a standalone article here, but (if you insist on mischaracterizing it that way) the "event" [sic] of a political party's candidate slate in the 1995 Ontario provincial elections. There are also apparently notable candidates not listed here that should be, and the list could be expanded to list all candidates with at a minimum their election results and whether they previously (or subsequently) had held or run for office. So all that would remain would be disputes over what level of sourced detail is appropriate for each non-notable candidate in this article on the "event" [sic]. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BLP1E doesn't say anything about a maximum duration beyond which something ceases to count as a "single event"; rather, it applies to any situation, regardless of whether it's purely momentary in nature or sustains over a finite number of days, where a person involved in the "event" fails to achieve anything that would give them a sustained claim of notability outside the context of that specific period of time.

Reality show contestants, for example, are not automatically notable just because the show airs over seven or eight or thirteen weeks rather than starting and finishing within a single night; the entire season is still a single event, and the person's notability has to be meaningfully sustained past the end of the season before they qualify for an article. An election campaign, similarly, is still a single event, not a series of events — and so a person involved in it does not become a valid article topic unless they (a) were already a valid article topic before it began, or (b) attain something that would make them a topic of sustained interest after the election campaign ends (winning the election isn't the only way it's possible for that to happen — just look at John Turmel, for example — but barring extraordinary circumstances it's the only one that's actually applicable to most candidates.) But the whole campaign is still a single event; the fact that it's an event that unfolds over the space of four weeks, rather than being confined entirely to a single day, doesn't make it a series of discrete events.

As well, BLP and all of its subsections apply to any article at all that contains information about a living person (or one who can be presumed to still be living in the absence of properly sourced evidence to the contrary.) It does not only apply to standalone biographical articles about individual people — lists of people are still subject to BLP; articles about companies are subject to BLP if you try to add personal information about the CEO; and on and so forth. If there's information about one or more living people in an article, then BLP still applies regardless of what the article's "official" topic is or isn't. So I'm not "mischaracterizing" anything; BLP still applies directly to this article, because it contains information about people who are not clearly sourced as having died — and just for the record, the "event" is Ontario general election, 1995 itself, not the list of one party's candidates within it. The candidate list exists only as a way to collate information about individual people involved in the event — and thus all of the usual content policies, including WP:BLP, still apply to what we should or should not be writing about any individual person listed in it. (And even if we skipped the separate list and piled this stuff directly into the election article itself, BLP would still be applicable to that.) Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would take yet another screen of text to unravel all that equivocation, so I'll instead just stipulate to your use of reality show contestants as an analogy, as even for those who aren't independently notable, we still list them within each season article along with brief biographical info. Which is what this is trying to do. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think a little bit harder about the difference between a nationally-broadcast reality show in which contestants are competing in front of a national television audience, and an election in which unelected candidates never become even marginally notable so much as one mile outside the boundaries of their own electoral district, if you think that this list is trying to accomplish the same thing as a "list of reality show contestants" is. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a notable political party's candidates in a high-level election is an encyclopedic topic, and it's reasonable to have brief bios of them to the extent that is sourceable. I find it hard to believe that any candidates running at this level from this party would be mere ciphers; they themselves probably revealed quite a bit of their lives in their campaign because politics relies so heavily on biography in its attempts to appeal to the public. Nothing in WP:BLP compels deletion here, and any issues with what details are appropriate or properly sourced is a matter for cleanup through normal editing and discussion. Instead, this list should be expanded to be made comprehensive and developed further. postdlf (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that any candidates running at this level from this party would be mere ciphers; they themselves probably revealed quite a bit of their lives in their campaign because politics relies so heavily on biography in its attempts to appeal to the public. Again, you're missing the point: these people might very well have "revealed quite a bit of their lives in their campaign", but that revelation was exclusively local and temporary. It did not make them a topic of broader geographic interest to anyone who was not in a position to consider voting for them by virtue of living in the specific district where they were running, nor did it make them a topic of long-term interest that an encyclopedia should be hanging onto information about twenty years later. It simply does not make them notable enough to be kept, forever, in an encyclopedia with an international audience. Jeff Burch and David Jacobs and Arlene Rousseau simply aren't of any interest to us as topics that we need to maintain any information about beyond the simple fact that their names appeared on a ballot — if they run for office again in the future and win then we'll need a hell of a lot more than this, and if they don't then there's no encyclopedic value in us retaining any information about them besides their name, party and vote total (information which is already present in other places anyway.)

Certainly the option exists of trimming the lists back to policy-compliant versions (i.e. the 2011 format), but there are two problems with that approach: firstly, the list ends up being nothing but an unnecessary duplicate of the election article itself, and thus serving no real purpose at all; and secondly, it's not good enough to say the lists need to get trimmed back. That's been getting said for years, in a lot of venues, but nothing's been happening at all. (I'm the only editor who's ever actually attempted to actually fix a list, as far as I know, and I certainly can't fix all of them all by myself.) If we want to keep the lists, we have to actually deal with the problems and can't just talk about it endlessly. Sure, they can stay if they're fixed (but then there's still the open question of whether they're even a useful thing for us to have anymore), but they violate content policies in this form, and thus can't stay in this form. So if you want them fixed, start helping to fix them. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry Bearcat, but I am philosophically opposed to you on this. I oppose the policy in general, and that's why I'm voting to keep. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I actually agree with Bearcat's arguments up to a point, in that I recognize Wikipedia's BLP and privacy policies have evolved significantly in the last decade. The approach that I took to creating these list pages (in most cases about five-to-eight years ago) is not one that I would follow today, and many of the candidate entries that I created do, with the benefit of hindsight, strike me as less-than-fully-encyclopedic by current standards (sometimes because the information seems unduly intrusive, but more often because it simply appears trivial). With that said, I do not believe that the approach advocated by Bearcat automatically or necessarily follows from current policy, and I certainly do not accept that current policy restricts us from including any significant biographical information about an unsuccessful candidate for public office.

There will, inevitably, be legitimate disagreement among editors as to how much information may reasonably be included on pages such as this; my view is that limiting this information to a brief indication of whether the candidate was an incumbent/cabinet minister/etc. is much too restrictive. My preferred approach, in light of current policy and best practices, is that candidate information on party list pages should be brief (usually 1-2 sentences) and generally limited to materials that are in the public interest. A candidate's electoral record and list of significant published works strike me as clearly within the latter category, while things like birthplace and education are more ambiguously so, and ephemeral newspaper quotes or campaign promises can generally be excised. (For a sense of what my approach would look like in practice, please see this page. Differing points of view are welcome.)

In any event, I don't believe this broader discussion is necessarily relevant to the current afd. We are not, at present, determining the form that list pages should take, but whether this particular page should exist at all. Even under the restrictive approach favoured by Bearcat, the page would still allow for an instant comparison of all party candidates in a way that Ontario general election, 1995 would not -- and, for that reason alone, I'll reiterate my view that the result should be an easy keep. CJCurrie (talk) 00:57, 14 September 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. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keven Santos

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

Prod removed (without explanation) Appears to fail WP:BIO. He is 'best known' for portraying a character in Pretty Little Liars (TV series) who doesn't even appear on that article. A google search turns up no reliable sources, and the only one given is IMDB which is not adequate to demonstrate notability. I'd suggest this fails WP:blp. Korruski^Talk 10:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only is there no sign of notability in this WP:PROMO WP:AUTOBIO, but it was originally based around a WP:HOAX, claiming a Portugese Golden Globe in the category "Best Azorean Comedy Actor" (a category that does not exist in the awards) for a film done in 2013 (which would not be eligible for the awards until next ear.) At best, it's WP:TOOSOON. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR and hasn't gotten any press coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Con-man, apparently added his whole family and friends to IMDb...e.g his brother Jason (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5487080/) and has claimed to win the Golden Globes, Portugal as well......Request Speedy Delete..--Stemoc (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with views expressed above.A candidate for speedy deletion. Finnegas (talk) 12:59, 10 September 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. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revival rock

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

Only references are to another Wikipedia article and a dictionary definition; no clear indication this topic is notable enough to have separate treatment. older ≠ wiser 10:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete referenced only to Wikipedia, no evidence that this is a recognised genre. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and likely WP:MADEUP. De728631 (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable concept. Seems like it might be an advert for the mentioned (non-notable) bands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 5 September 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.

Lukasz Glinka

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph F. Lorette

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

Besides the Silver Star citation there is nothing about this person. He fails GNG IMO and don't believe that the Silver Star makes him notable enough Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I moved this content out of another article so that this exact issue could be discussed, or perhaps, somebody will come forward with more information to establish notability. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability criteria as I cannot find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior NCO with a single third-level decoration. Definitely not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not meet WP:GNG/WP:SOLDIER. — -dainomite 22:32, 8 September 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 Ultraman monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaragas

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

Like most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there isn't sufficient coverage of this character to meet WP:GNG. A merge to List of Ultraman monsters is perhaps in order, but I really don't see the point of moving a chunk of uncited plot summary from one page to another (also entirely uncited) page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I honestly don't see the point in a redirect, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap and in this instance will lead readers to the information they seek rather than inspiring them to recreate this article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree entirely with the nomination. Nowhere near enough independent sources to justify a stand-alone article, and copypasting a lot of unsourced cruft from one article to another is an inappropriate use of the merge process. Creating a redirect after the article is deleted is a matter of editor discretion, but personally I agree with NinjaRobotPirate here. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 9 September 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 Ultraman monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimon

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

Like most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there isn't sufficient coverage of this character to meet WP:GNG. A merge to List of Ultraman monsters is perhaps in order, but I really don't see the point of moving a chunk of uncited plot summary from one page to another (also entirely uncited) page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Same deal: don't see the point in a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap and in this instance will lead readers to the information they seek rather than inspiring them to recreate this article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Ultraman monsters which is the proper place for this character (and that is what I would have done instead of starting an AfD). Cavarrone 05:35, 12 September 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 Ultraman monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zambolar

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

Like most 'monster of the week' non-recurring villains, there isn't sufficient coverage of this character to meet WP:GNG. A merge to List of Ultraman monsters is perhaps in order, but I really don't see the point of moving a chunk of uncited plot summary from one page to another (also entirely uncited) page. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirect seems pointless. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redirects are cheap and in this instance will lead readers to the information they seek rather than inspiring them to recreate this article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect won't hurt anything. Usually I favor trying to find a redirect, but we're talking about a character who showed up once in an old TV show. Does anyone ever search for this? Should we make redirects for every Scooby Doo villain from the 60s and 70s? What about all the various minor antagonists of Doctor Who or Star Trek? At some point, a line has to be drawn. I'm not opposed to a redirect (they are cheap), but I'm beginning to think that these hordes of Ultra Series articles simply don't belong here in any form. I'm unconvinced that anyone is ever going to search for this term, which is backed up by stats.grok.se. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 5 September 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) 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptopathy

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

This article is unreferenced and to my best knowledge original research. LT90001 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Just a note, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present within articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - This is a legitimate topic, and sources exist that cover it. Examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. The depth of coverage in most of these is minimal, so more research is needed to find those that provide significant coverage. The first two sources in my !vote above cover the topic more in depth than the rest. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Synaptopathy: dysfunction of synaptic function? for an example of a source which covers the topic in a general way. Warden (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good finds by Northamerica1000 and Warden. There is enough depth in these sources, and in the references cited in the paper found by Warden, to both satisfy notability concerns and to support an article on this relatively new topic. --Mark viking (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources aren't present in the article, but are available. The subject meets WP:GNG per the sources Northamerica1000 provided above. - Aoidh (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11, CSD A7. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God Pass Me, Not! (Original Musical)

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

Non-notable musical. Unsupported by any references, what I find seems to be limited the play is happening announcements, beyond that there's no reviews, no user fan sites. It seems to be written to simply to promote the musical. From what I can tell had a three day run in July. Note from info on the file uploaded it appears to user writing the article is John Roland the author which adds COI to the list of problems. Caffeyw (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd noticed that another of the articles had been nominated due to a copyvio and then that there were several spammy looking articles for various plays that had to do with the people that had been written about. I'd say that this could be speedied as sheer spam due to the tone. If that's not enough, there's a complete lack of coverage for the play as a whole to show that it merits an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably recommend salting this and any other entries by this editor, as they re-added The Missionary Mother's Board (Original Musical) immediately after it was speedied earlier today. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 4 September 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) 07:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Supernaw

AfDs for this article:

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

This spent just short of one year in the article incubator,and had no substantive edits at all in that time and no edits of any kind in several months. He does not seem to have become any more notable in that time, having been placed on the injured list without ever appearing in a major league game. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NGRIDIRON, based on his bio. He apparently has not played in any professional games, has not won any awards, or otherwise attracted national media attention as an individual. Braincricket (talk) 02:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with previous comments. Clearly fails to meet either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing the level of coverage we like to see to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:17, 10 September 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. KTC (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kelley

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

Unreferenced BLP of a non-notable politician Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of an assertion of notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:39, 4 September 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) 18:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who We Are (Flyleaf album)

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

Doesn't appear to have achieved notability. AllMusic has an entry, but it's empty except for a track listing: http://www.allmusic.com/album/who-we-are-mw0002559453 Tagged for notability since its release and two months on, no new support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. And it peaked 35 on Billboard's "Top Christian Albums" category (see your Allmusic link) Dea db eef 05:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deadbeef and per Blabbermouth Sydney City News, "Nobody's worked on it!" isn't a good rationale for deletion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of coverage out there. Seems strange to remind an experienced nominator of WP:BEFORE, but... Sergecross73 msg me 12:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Deadbeef. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:NALBUM per Deadbeef's links above. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per A7 and G11 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Missionary Mother's Board (Original Musical)

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

Unremarkable play. I was unable to find enough reliable coverage. The only source I found was an interview with Johnson (the play's writer), but the play is only mentioned in passing. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This was actually speedied earlier in the day but was pretty swiftly re-added by the original editor. It's one of several rather promotional articles that they've added about a very small group of people and their performances. It's a little bit of a walled garden, in my opinion. Considering the amount of promotional articles and how quickly this was re-added, I'd recommend a salting. In any case, there's nothing out there to show notability for this or any of the stuff added by the editor. If anything, this could probably be speedied under one format or another. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 4 September 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.