Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 December 5 December >

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) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

L.W. Hodge

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

Article about a non-notable filmmaker. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - Mr X 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches including Google News provided nothing substantial aside from another NYTimes link, which is a reliable source but both links mention him in passing. All around, it seems he is indeed best known for the "Unforgivable" videos in addition to his other YouTube stuff. I would suggest a redirect to Gunnar Stansson but I don't really think there's much for him there either. I should also mention that searches under his alias Aerobiz found nothing as well as Main Attrakionz. Obviously, he's simply known as a YouTube video maker. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sourcing, no desire to merge. JodyB talk 05:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

International Japanese–English Translation Conference

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no merge discussion for over a year. Puffin Let's talk! 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Japan Association of Translators. Although the target article is also unsourced, Google Books finds several mentions. My !vote presumes that the organization will satisfy GNG. If the decision is to merge, I would lose the list of meetings, but keep information in the lead section. Cnilep ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this conference meets the basic notability criteria. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete fails WP:GNG. Gbooks contains mainly proceedings from this conference. This is not third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Cnilep. Keep the lead section in a better place. The list, meh. Jus da fax 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Power_Rangers_characters#G. JodyB talk 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Goldar

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers 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) 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spawn villains. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Urizen (comics)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Spawn (comics) 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) 01:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB talk 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Matthew Clarke (actor)

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

WP:GNG not satisfied. Not a notable actor. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Next_of_Kin_(TV_series)#Characters - Minor actor with his Next of Kin being his best known work in addition to his recent work as a "location manager" which would hardly receive much significant attention. Everything is supported by IMDb with no other links or information to add to the article. I should mention that detailed searches including Google News provided nothing. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a redirect of an actor to his character is not appropriate, unless the article is substantially expanded to tell us what he was doing before and after. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life.. Based upon the reading of policies I think the redirect is the proper course. The article can be recreated should his notability increase in the future. JodyB talk 05:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rolf Dinsdale

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

Yet another case where someone jumped the gun by creating an article about an unelected candidate in a local election. It dances right on the edge of being a campaign brochure, including analysis of his positions and a subjective quote about his opinion of Justin Trudeau, and completely fails to provide any real demonstration that he actually gets past another notability guideline to counterbalance his failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 06:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 06:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life. If he were a.n.other candidate in a local election, I'd probably support deletion. However, the election which Rolf Dinsdale stood in was a federal one, not a local one and he nearly won, coming within 400 votes of victory in a seat previously held by his father. So, while that doesn't merit a standalone article, it does mean that he's a plausible search term. WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." I believe in this case, brief mentions in context in the father's article would be more appropriate than deletion or a simple redirect to the election article, redirects being cheap. Valenciano ( talk) 09:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. Not independently notable. It might be ok to merge a bit of this article, but most of it is trivia (e.g. Shit From Hell isn't a notable band, and we don't need the lengthy quotes). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. It is my opinion that the page should be kept, and edited if need be. Dinsdale was a candidate for a major Canadian political party, in a federal by-election, and almost won. As to the point that I jumped the gun in creating the page, it should be pointed out that Dinsdale was leading in many pre-election polls, in a Conservative party stronghold. As for the section discussing his positions, I always find it helpful to have some indication of a political candidate's views on several matters. The quote, however, does seem unhelpful in hindsight, so I apologise for that. Also, I'm not entirely sure it's that appropriate to state "following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail." Thanks. NHCLS ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Leading in the polls during an election campaign" does not in and of itself make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and what happened to Dinsdale is exactly the reason why that's the case: he led all the polls, but still lost — because the voters who actually showed up to actually mark actual ballots turned out not to be a representative sample of what the poll respondents were saying. (There is a reason politicians say "the only poll that matters is the one on election day".) Either way, the rule about politicians on Wikipedia is that if you can't make a credible case that a person was already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate in an election, then the mere fact of running in an election doesn't make them any more notable than they were before — with extremely rare exceptions they have to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat ( talk) 06:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, you're misquoting me. I didn't say that "he continues to fail", period, end of sentence; I said that "he continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN". Sure, it would have been inappropriate commentary if I'd ended the sentence where you quoted me as ending it — but I didn't. It wasn't a comment on his basic worth as a human being; it was a comment on his lack of meeting a specific Wikipedia inclusion rule. Bearcat ( talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Really sorry. I don't see how I misread that; I think I was just pretty frustrated that this article, which I think should be kept, was probably going to be deleted as well as the wording of the statement, in my opinion, made me sound like a Liberal Party of Canada tool. On the issue of his not winning, I agree that you have a very valid point, however, he does seem to have done a lot of work with Facebook in Canada, which might be grounds for keeping the article. However, if the article is deleted, I do not believe it should be changed to a redirect, just outright deleted. Once again, sorry about the misquote. Thanks. NHCLS ( talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
In terms of WP:OUTCOMES, that does say: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question" (emphasis mine.) If this person was a nobody whose only claims to notability were standing and losing, who bombed badly in a general election, deletion would be clear. However here we have someone who stood in a by-election (special election) and very nearly won, someone who is the son of the former longstanding representative for that district, someone who plays in a punk band of borderline notability and who got a bit of press coverage, albeit related to the election. I've had a look and I quite agree with the nominator that that coverage is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but this is one of the clearest cases for a redirect that I've seen, given the other circumstances, as content which people who come here may well search and could be preserved as a brief, sourced line or two in either the by-election article or the father's article. (Suggest the latter.) Valenciano ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Chesterfield Quarterback League

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

I am not sure if this article meets notability. It seems that there are no sources (besides a dead link) for this youth league, though there are a few NFL players that started out from this league. Natg 19 ( talk) 09:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've never found a youth leauge to be notable and I see no reason that this one should be. I cannot find any notability measure that would make it so. There is some coverage found online, but it is all local coverage. It doesn't matter if any notable players started in the league because all notable players started someplace. If there was widespread coverage about this particular league, it would be different. I just don't see it.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lexx episodes. postdlf ( talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I Worship His Shadow

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

Plot summary only of one episode of a series. No sign of notability. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to List of Lexx episodes. While the first episode of a multi-season series is the sort of thing that might realistically be able to support an article, this is nothing but a badly overlong plot summary. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Rotherham#Independent schools. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rudston Preparatory School

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

Non-notable primary school as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Drm310 ( talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of schools in Rotherham#Independent schools - fails WP:ORG. As is usual practice for primary schools redirect seems a constructive way forward. The Whispering Wind ( talk)
  • Redirect-yeah, I'll go with that. It's just a nonsense article. Totally fails WP:ORG. Atlas-maker ( talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (rather than plain redirect). This is (in the terms of other countries) a private school; hence rather different from the typical state school. Alternatively the merge target might be a list of prep schools in Yorkshire. English Public schools are generally for 13-18; and prep schools 8-13, preparing pupils for entrance to public schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I should be happy to support a merge, but where? I have had a good look for a better target but without success. I am not aware of a List of preparatory schools in Yorkshire or similar, for example. Indeed, the problem with such a list is that it is likely to be composed mainly of grey links as most of the schools would be nn. Mentioning the school at Rotherham would be undue weight and more content at List of schools in Rotherham would be out of keeping with the rest of the list. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'd add that I don't agree that independent schools are any more inherently notable than state schools. Thats just snobbery. Atlas-maker ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 military electronics of the United States. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

AN/ASQ-119

AN/ASQ-119 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of military electronics of the United States, an appropriate location for a brief description. It could be argued that the AN/ designation is prima facie evidence of notability, but (barring sufficient sources for an expansion) an inclusive list of these types would be better than a series of stubs in this instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I may be flirting with WP:AGF here but I don't see indication that nominator considered alternatives to deletion. ~ KvnG 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An unsourced article of a fictional character. Redirect doesn't match well as a fictional character would redirect to a cast list. JodyB talk 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ray Barnett

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ştefan Balş

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

No references, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Google Books is giving me a lot of hits in Romanian, as I might expect. A reading of the article suggests the sort of accomplishments that ought to be covered in reliable sources; that those sources aren't included in the article (or aren't in English) does not a reason for deletion make. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF criterion 3. A year before his death, he was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy, and I would argue that any member of that body is notable.
  • Having said that, yes, the lack of references is glaring, and at some point, that should be addressed. Unfortunately, what's online, even in books, is mainly just routine mentions (Balş restored this church, Balş restored that church), so this article may actually require (!) print sources. - Biruitorul Talk 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough has emerged including his election to the Romanian Academy to show that he is notable. Moreover, there is no reason to suggest that the article is incorrect although it could doubtless be considerably expanded. -- AJHingston ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As mentioned, qualifies under WP:PROF#3. He is also subject of a biography in the Grove Dictionary of Art.. Actually, on further review, Delete as a verbatim copy of copyrighted text from Grove. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Brickbat Revue

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

Non-notable broadsheet lacking non-trivial support. Ghits and GNews lack substance. reddogsix ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This publication has not received the necessary notice by independent sources. The references in the article are mostly about one of the founders of the publication; the others are passing mentions. Google and Google News Archive searches find nothing of significance. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Brickbat Revue is an LA based broadsheet that services the local black community by providing an outlet for African-American poets to print their original works. It also provides political and cultural analysis of the events in the local black community. Although it has a limited internet presence because it is a broadsheet that is difficult to reproduce on the internet, it is a valuable resource with a dedicated local readership that deserves to be highlighted on Wikipedia. The black community has so few media outlets to cover its artistic scene and it would be a shame to remove a reference to a viable small media outlet, that is keeping independent print journalism alive in its on small way, from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamj2 ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Lisamj2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In the world of online literary journals Brickbat Revue is a rarity. It reaches back and borrows from Wallace Berman's Semina, it is reminiscence of the Aspen Wall Posters. Original work that is a true labor of love. While Teka Lark is one of the most innovative poets in L.A. this project sadly includes none of her work. It includes the work of people of note in the L.A. literary an art scene. Original pieces by Brendan Constantine, SA Griffin and Jaha. In times like these it's so important for physical works of art that are underground be preserved, because they are important pieces of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannichi ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl ( talk • contribs) — 1635schl ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I feel that the Brickbat Revue has significant value in L.A.'s literary community.
  1. It has published original works by all authors listed.
  2. S.A. Griffin, Wanda Coleman and Brendan Constantine's work all later went on to be published in book format by respected publisher which signifies the work is significant, not simple reprints of old work.
  3. The Brickbat Revue also has original work by Danny Weizmann one of the original writers at the L.A. Weekly.
  4. The Brickbat Revue is not a vanity press or print on demand, which many small presses in L.A. are, which makes the Brickbat Revue unique.
  5. It's internet footprint is light owing to the owners being a bit luddite in nature and actively trying to keep print alive and shunning the internet a bit, but just because it is not online doesn't mean it's not relevant.
  6. The Brickbat Revue is archived at UC Berkeley, Cal State L.A. and Barnard College.
Brickbat Revue is a substantial literary journal. It is archived in several academic institutions in the U.S. It is a physical archive of the Los Angeles literary scene from the early aughts forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.138.69 ( talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl ( talk • contribs) — 69.115.138.69 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: We don't require references that establish notability to come from online sources. If you can point to off-line sources that show that this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notablity, that is also fine. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with nominator's reasons. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Life on Mars characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Dobbs

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

Short article for minor character in Life on Mars (UK TV series) (she is not considered noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the characters section of the main article). When the fluff is cleaned away, can easily be covered in List of Life on Mars characters, where there are listings of equivalent size. HornetMike ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Riley Stearns

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

Also nominating Jo Crocker. Two people with very minor roles in the media, whose only notability is the fact they are the husband of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the sister of Stephen Fry respectively. Can be covered in the personal life sections of their famous connections. HornetMike ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Crocker, who is certainly NN. Not sure about Stearns, but he probably is too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<! reply

-- from Template:Relist -->

  • Delete. Stearns is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. He was a writer's assistant and hasn't distinguished himself enough for notability. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of liturgical Hebrew cognates

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

The article consists of a list of Hebrew terms, comparing their pronunciations in the various liturgical traditions.

Firstly, I do not see why this is encyclopedic material; at best, it should be transwikied.

Also, the methods of transcription are idiosyncratic, and the choice of sub-dialects is also unusual (ŋ for ayin in Ashkenazi Hebrew, for instance.) הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is also not a directory, and the English Wikipedia is not for an article in which the information is in another language. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because (a) The Hebrew language is very ancient dating back at least 4,000+ years in its origins and development, so that therefore (b) it is only logical, historically necessary correct, and simple etymology that there are so many variants in its pronunciation. This list is only a tiny fraction of that reality. Now wonder that (c) there are so many articles based on Hebrew words, and hence Category:Hebrew words and phrases. (d) The reason/s cited by the nominator are not valid in this case because of WP:NOTPAPER and this information is highly informative and educational. Also, please take a look at the advice in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (e) User Gilgamesh ( talk · contribs) the creator of this list is a long time reliable editor, knowledgeable in this field, having created this article in 2004! and it would be a great pity that this is lost now. (f) For each word the list cites the common English Biblical usage is cited and then continues with the variances that exists or have existed in Hebrew. By all means improve it, and engage its creator in a WP:AGF discussion how to get that done. (g) Prayer in HEBREW (see List of Jewish prayers and blessings) and Torah study based on HEBREW are central to the practice of Judaism, and therefore the kind of words and how they are used is important. And obviously this is important to both Christianity and Islam as well since they are derived from and borrow from the original Hebrew of Judaism. Thus (h) it is no surprise that there are categories such as Category:Hebrew words and phrases in Jewish prayers and blessings. (i) In a similar and related fashion, there are many examples of lists comparing words and their different usages or origins in all sorts of situations, see for example the vastly differing and often esoteric examples in Category:Lists of English words (with sub-categories such as Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin). On and on what seems "esoteric" it goes, see List of eponymous adjectives in English; List of Latin words with English derivatives. See Category:Arabic words and phrases with List of Quranic names. (j) Bottom line, while the list may "seem" specialized and "out-of-place" -- and like many articles and lists it can and will be improved over time, especially if expert editorial input is requested at WP:TALKJUDAISM -- it nevertheless serves as a valuable and encyclopedic entry demonstrating differences of pronunciation within Hebrew and existing at the same in English in similar forms that would be entirely self-defeating for WP to lose. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    @ IZAK: I assume that you didn't list points a–c and f–h for my benefit?
Let me state my points more clearly; the problems with this article are as follows:
(1) the topic is not encyclopedic, that is, not in the scope of an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY;
(2a) the topic is not independently notable (even if the Hebrew language, its many dialects, Jewish liturgy and its variants all are);
(2b) the list does not serve a conceivable navigational purpose so that it should be kept regardless of notability; and
(3) even if kept or transwikied there are content issues to be dealt with, namely the choice of sub-dialects representing the major dialects (Ashkenazi Hebrew is significant; ŋ-Ashkenazi is not, except in a discussion of all varieties of Hebrew) and consistency in method of transcription.
( Gilgamesh's high quality of editing is completely irrelevant to whether the article is kept.) הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
No contest. It was all original research almost a decade ago, when I was barely starting to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia and its goals. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I should add — there is certainly merit in this study. But my old approach was inappropriately amateurish and entirely unreferenced. The various phonetic traditions should be addressed as topics (which they are in many of the different Hebrew dialect articles), but an indexed, referenced collection of specific traditional pronunciations may have its place on Wiktionary. I've long since had a presence on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I'm perfectly alright with sorting information on their appropriate wikis. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think you are too critical of your own work here; very little referencing is necessary for such an article, as it all follows plainly from descriptions of the various dialects. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Now that I think of it (I'm sorry that I don't articulate my thoughts all at once), there may be a place for relatively short illustrative lexical lists on Wikipedia, to demonstrate the differences in phonetic traditions. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — I think sources can be easily found and all of the information can be listed at the individual articles and Wiktionary entries for each of the names. However, there's no need to have it all in a list. –  Zntrip 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - while it may have passed AfD six years ago, it would fail today. Consensus has changed to eliminate charts of words in various dialects such as this. Bearian ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zeroads

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

Notability not established. I found one single-paragraph blurb in PCWorld reviewing it, no other RS. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. PCworld paragraph mentioned by nom doesn't meet threshold of significant coverage, and a search did not turn up any additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At first I thought perhaps a merge into FBM Software would be in order, but it is not even clear the company as a whole is notable. If you look at its "in the news" page for example, the last activity was in 2005. It was supposedly based in San Francisco, but could not find any mention at all in the San Francisco Business Journal, which would normally cover any significant company. The only link given in this article went dead over two years ago, see this archive W Nowicki ( talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

ZeroNetHistory

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

Notability not established. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 19:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opposing views. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep And I don't buy arguments that military history does not belong in the Wikipedia. Hmmm only 373,000 results on Google. And only mentioned in 2,670 books. How disappointing. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Lose the strawman, Hawkeye7, you (should) be better than that. I never said that military history does not belong in Wikipedia. I said that this article gives no indication of notability. I'm seeing tons of sources that list it in large listings of units that exist, but not finding any that are discussing the unit specifically with a level of critical discussion that would meet GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military formations of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this division was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • We definitely would, because this article contains no claim to notability (independent of that it's a large unit) and only one source, which is offline. There's a really simple solution to this, which is "don't create crap articles". All this page has is a listing of places that a unit was stationed. That, in and of itself, gives no claim to notability. You can't just assume that someone with no experience in writing military history articles is going to come along and be able to find sources. I don't have the massive library that Hawkeye7 apparently has; I have to go off of Google searches, and in this case I've got pages of sources that mention it in lists, and nothing that's describing it in specific detail, nothing that would indicate the unit's notability. When all I'm getting are things like "A later landing by the 114th Division was similarly unopposed." or "And the experienced 101st, 106th, 108th, 109th, and 114th were on call-up status." from Google, I've got nothing to go on. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

102nd Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army)

102nd Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Another well-known regiment of the Imperial Japanese Army. Arrived in January 1943 and fought in the Huon Peninsula campaign and later around Wewak. A quick check shows a plethora of mentions in Dexter, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

144th Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army)

144th Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Holy cow. This is the regiment around which the South Seas Detachment was built. That makes it one of the most notable Japanese Army regiments of the Pacific War. -- Yaush ( talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Yes, it is one of the best-known and most notable regiments in the Imperial Japanese Army. Pull any book on the war in New Guinea and you will find references to. But start with Miller, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 00:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Gregory Hodge

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

Non-notable high school educator. Although Hodge was the topic of a very nice New York Daily News profile on the occasion of his retirement, that appears to be the only coverage available for him. The school he headed is notable, but he as an individual does not appear to be. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unless other evidence comes to light. I'd note that this page has been speedy-deleted before as mentioned on the article creator's usertalk page and the new page appears to have been posted just after the speedy deletion of the old one (and I think only a minute later). Neonchameleon ( talk) 18:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Other evidence came to light. Change to Keep Neonchameleon ( talk) 01:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Change to keep -- Yngvadottir ( talk · contribs) has done yeoman's work in finding other sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The news coverage now in the article is enough for WP:GNG. (I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but WP:PROF is not really aimed at educators at the secondary school level so GNG is the more appropriate notability criterion.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've not yet been able to find any information on his earlier teaching, but I found and added several extended discussions of his work in newspapers, and some book sources. He is one of the principals given a chapter-length profile in a Heritage Foundation book, so I added that as Further reading. I think the article now demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Shelby Walker

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and a career record of 2 wins and 3 losses. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails NMMA--I think nom says it all. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. 173.171.115.72 ( talk) 09:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think it's salient to note that her stats are low because of her premature death. I don't know if that matters all that much, but it ought to count for something in one direction or another. Also, I think it's salient that at the time of her death, she was engaged to Denis Kang (who is notable, and whose weak record since 2006 is generally attributed to her death), and perhaps some of her information could be incorporated into that article. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Carina Damm

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

One top tier might does not meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is routine sports reporting. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rin Nakai

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

Lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dick Cardinal

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

I found nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. The only coverage I could find were one line mentions or his name in a list of names and that's not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything to show he meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not sure what the notability standards are for carnival/side-show wrestlers, but there's no record of him competing in actual sporting events that would show notability. The sources are one line mentions or his name in a list of fellow carnival wrestlers which I don't think is enough to meet WP:GNG. There's also nothing independent to show he's a notable wrestling coach. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG nor do I see him satisfy any other notability criteria. The claims in the article aren't enough to show notability and are either unsourced or fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa ( talk) 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author blanked Jac16888 Talk 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of most runways at an airport

List of most runways at an airport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, and possible WP:OR. Is the amount of runways a airport have a important characteristic or trivia? The article was proded but the editor who created it, took down the prod without explanation. ...William 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. - BilCat ( talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's unsourced, it's original research, even the title barely makes sense. I doubt it even satisfies the general notability guideline - a paragraph in the Guinness book of records is not sufficient. bobrayner ( talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My initial Google search on this found discussions of the topic at some aircraft enthusiast websites and general information websites like Yahoo Answers, but not anywhere that I'd consider a clearly reliable source establishing notability of "most runways" as a list topic. The topic is not inherently unencyclopedic, however; for example, a properly sourced statement that an airport has the most (or among the most) runways would be appropriate to include in that airport's article. Searching the phrase "most runways" is tricky, so it's possible something might turn up.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I suspect that this article is badly mis-named. It seems to be a list of the number of runways by airport, with the "most" referring only to the top entry not the topic. As such, this information is surely available for the majority of airports and cannot be considered OR, just unreferenced. So if the topic is deemed notable, this page could be moved and not deleted. I see it as the sort of topic a serious researcher might be interested in, though referencing its notability might be difficult. However, to look a little wider, it might be better still to merge the content with the List of longest runways content into a single sortable multi-column table at say List of airport runways, before deleting the present nonsensical title after all I have said. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete basically this is something that might pop up in a trivia quiz down at the pub, but otherwise it is a pointless comparison without a clear purpose that falls foul of WP:NOT and its admonishment that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - number of runways is certainly not a corollary to how busy a given airport is; for example Honolulu with its six runways has fewer movements than Sydney with its three runways, and I'd bet that Edwards doesn't have anywhere near the same number of movements as either of them. This would be as worthwhile having as List of airports by land area. YSSYguy ( talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Falls afoul of both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. -- John ( talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't see the notability of the article, it's just an unsourced compilation that borders original research. -- Jetstreamer  Talk 23:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Snow delete - completely useless list, "runway" isn't even defined. Heathrow had as many as 12 runways at one time, but isn't even mentioned. Mjroots ( talk) 10:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment The article's creator blanked the page. ...William 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: copyright violation too, close paraphrasing). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sarvodaya Mahila Vikas Pariyojana

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

This article consists of snippets of text copied from various reports (such as this, this), but with sufficient differences (both in content and title) to lead one to believe that this report is not a direct copy and that this article is not intended to cover the same topic as those links. Since a search for this article's title yields only this article and a few Facebook groups, one may presume that this is not a notable topic for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable group of people. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Vonic

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

In no way notable, but not covered by CSD. Jprg1966  (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources, no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sports Blast radio show

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

No references, could not find very much coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems like there is a consensus not to delete. Which article to merge into which can be settled on the talk page. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zhuyeping

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

Merge to Zhuyeping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Aside from being a duplicate, I have to say that I am disgusted by the creator's decision to mass-create articles using AWB. This article has barely any useful information, other than 'it exists'. It's been a 13 word stub for six plus years now, and I shudder to think of how many other equally useless quality articles this person has created. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge in reverse. Zhuyeping, Sangzhi should merge into [[ Zhuyeping because the Sangzhi part of the name is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate this article so simply Zhuyeping is sufficient. I would possibly say delete for both articles on notability grounds. Rincewind42 ( talk) 04:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge existing human settlements are basically inherently notable, so no deleting please. see WP:NPLACE. agree with Rincewind42, "Zhuyeping" should be title of surviving article, not "Zhuyeping, Sangzhi". - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge of Zhuyeping, Sangzhi into Zhuyeping, per Rincewind42 and the fact that the latter was created before the former. Besides this, per WP:BEFORE, why are we having a deletion discussion where the nomination is to propose a merge outcome? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wudaoshui, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Wudaoshui

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

Merge to Wudaoshui, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shataping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Shataping

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

Merge to Shataping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Longtanping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Longtanping

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

Merge to Longtanping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liujiaping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Liujiaping

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

Merge to Liujiaping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liaojiacun, Sangzhi. Merge away SarahStierch ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Liaojiacun

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

Merge to Liaojiacun, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lifuta, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lifuta

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

Merge to Lifuta, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ruitapu, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ruitapu

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

Merge to Ruitapu, Sangzhi. GZWDer ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. Go for it! Merge away please. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Renchaoxi

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

Duplicate page. There're already Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. GZWDer ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

LomoX

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

Non- notable software product. Article borders on spam. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Indeed seems to fail GNG. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An interesting project, but not enough coverage in independent reliable sourced. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per criterion 1 (withdrawn by nominator with no one arguing for deletion). Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ecopsychology

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

The article is somewhat redundant but should be deleted because it introduces the uncommon neologism Ecopsychology rather than the more conventional (but still niche) conservation psychology. I propose that this article should be replaced with a redirect to that page. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - may be uncommon, but there are plenty of sources cited to demonstrate notability. It returns 200k ghits including more than 4k just in Scholar. It's not the same thing as conservation psychology, but clearly related. I don't have expertise in the area, but these two sources discuss both terms: an APA publication & Human Ecology Review article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With over 4,300 hits on GScholar, this looks like a highly notable topic. The field has its own journal, Ecopsychology and that page, too, distinguishes ecopsychology from conservation psychology. Along with Rhododendrites' sources, there is good evidence in RS that the two fields are considered distinct, and that is good enough for us. The article itself is well-structured has some citations. There might be some synthesis, but nothing that cannot be fixed, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic, good evidence in RS that this is a distinct topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw proposal WP:SNOW. ;-) - yes, it's probably better to clean than delete.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 01:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Albany Senior High School, Auckland

Albany Senior High School, Auckland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising and doubtable notabilty The Banner  talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously. It's a secondary school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • And why should that make it notable and not advertising? The Banner  talk 14:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You know very well why, as you're very well aware of the precedent. And how on earth is this article advertising? What is it advertising? How can a state school advertise anyway? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's not policy to keep all secondary schools, but that's the precedent with rare exception (I don't love it either). In this case, it's sourced, and if it's the first state senior high school in the country I don't think there's a question. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep. Obviously not advertising and just as obviously notable given the multiple sources and the longstanding standards applied to public high school. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - taking the sources in the page with those also available, WP:ORG is met. In addition, "New Zealand's first state senior high school" is another factor. Not advertising, it simply states the facts. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. perfectly standard high school article with no essence of promotion. Proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for high schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep - as th proposer is very well aware. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No opposition to speedy renomination. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Albany Junior High School

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

Advertising and doubtable notability The Banner  talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If it was the first junior high school in New Zealand and its existence is controversial then it's notable. Where's the advertising? That's an utterly spurious claim for a start. How on earth can an article about a state school be advertising? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the reasons cited in the first AfD, which remain valid. Article has multiple sources and is not advertising. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not advertising, "it was the first purpose built Junior High in New Zealand", and no reason why it cannot meet WP:ORG. Research and expansion is the way forward not deletion. Education to year/grade 10 indicates a high school. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to the article about the location. The relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG presently says (after some discussion on the talk page of the notability guideline) "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Being "the first entity of its kind in New Zealand" is not a criterion found in WP:ORG or in WP:N, nor is being "controversial" . Granted,common outcomes of countless AFDs have been the keeping of high school and college articles, since the community of editors finds them to be inherently notable. or alternatively to have a high likelihood of having the quantity and quality of references needed for notability. But the common outcome has been the merging/redirecting of primary school and middle school articles, when there is this little evidence of WP:ORG and WP:N being satisfied. Edison ( talk) 00:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To bring this here after a previous overwhelming 'keep' discussion is purely and simply disruptive, time wasting, and pointy, as the nominator well knows. Perfectly standard secondary school but the article has some bloated prose that needs recasting and pruning for encyclopedic quality, but otherwise proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for secondary schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Common outcomes is not a reason for keeping, Kudpung. You know that well enough. The Banner  talk 13:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but that precedent is so old and so strong that it can't be ignored just because you don't like it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It is not a high school. It's a middle school, and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD." The previous AFD was not much of a precedent to be citing as a Keep argument, with lots of hand-waving keep argument which were not based on the relevant notability guidelines "It's unusual and controversial" then "Keep per what he said" from several others, along with "It's the first of it's kind in that country" None of that satisfied the relevant notability guidelines, then or now.. This one also has several non-guideline based arguments. There is no clear reason why middle schools in New Zealand should be kept and ones in the US should be redirected. Does it have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage? WP:ORG also requires national coverage; are the new sources covering this school considered national? The NZ Herald is in the same city as the school, so it might be functioning as a local news source and thus might not reflect national importance, even in a relatively small nation, smaller than 25 US states and 10 US cities. Edison ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm a strong believer in the established consensus that pieces on all but the most exceptional elementary schools should be redirected to their school district or other governing entity. That said, I think there is a case to be made here that as the "first junior high in New Zealand" this particular school does have a notability hook. Carrite ( talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not sure how the overlap between NZ and US middle schools compares. Grade 10 is a legal school leaving age in most countries. In the UK there are still a few counties toperatinga three tier system with the middle sschool being something for 10 - 14 year olds. Grade 10 is, I believe still the legal school leaving age, while gredes 11 and 12 of the high schools are often call 'Sixth form colleges' where students prepare mainly for university entrance. So the confusion is when is a secondary school a high school, or a junior high, or a middle school. I've always considered secondary school and high school to be coterminus (but not middle school). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
According to our Secondary education article, New Zealand counts "secondary education" as from years 9 to 13. Albany Junior High School serves years 7-10, so I guess this is in between a middle and a high school. Some editors may argue that since the schools serves a form of secondary education (years 9 and 10), it falls under the blanket notability given to all secondary schools. Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Years 7 to 10 in New Zealand equate to Grades 6 to 9 in the US. Also, around a third (104 out of 336) of New Zealand secondary schools now start at Year 7 rather than Year 9. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Claims of controversy are overstated and outdated, therefore fails WP:NOTNEWS. As it is not a High School, it fails GNG. Incidentally, it is not advertising, just poorly written by someone unacquainted with the concept of an encyclopedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7, author requested) by Wtmitchell. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lexi Butman (actress)

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

This article does not reference any reliable, non-independent source to establish wp:notability. It also seams to be wp:autobiography, as the photo is attributed to Lexi Butman, but uploaded by the author of the article. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - BLP with no claim to notability. Might even meet CSD. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there are only a few links. One is to imdb, which has zero credits; only a photo. Now it's clear this is blatant promotion. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Zero notability to be found for an actress who has not appeared in any films. Tarc ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Rhododendrites sums it up nicely. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neutral nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions were voiced. ( non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Telexfree

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

I am bringing this article to AfD because I cannot determine whether it is an attack page on the corporation or not. It is insufficiently well sourced to remain an article as it stands, but does assert sufficient notability to be CSD-proof. I am nominating it in a neutral manner and will form my own judgment as the discussion progresses. Most of the issues with the company in the article as written appear to be with its sister company or companies. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

On the basis of the sources provided I am able to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Guys. We did some researches on internet to write this first version of Telexfree Inc. article, including Telexfree portuguese Wikipedia page and we hope that our team will contribute with more pieces of information. Thanks Duda100 Duda100 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I believe the current edit is an attempt to translate the corresponding article on the portuguese Wikipedia, which is appropriately sourced, with plenty of references. Parts of the text are coincident. Maybe after inserting references from its portuguese version, as well as finding english sources, the article might be adequate to stay. Maurício Gomes MMN ( talk) 10:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Non English references are perfectly acceptable. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • All right, then the current english article does need the sources from the portuguese article. I will try to add some. Maurício Gomes MMN ( talk) 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
That would be swell. Sorry for the aggravation. Dloh cierekim 14:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThis is a newly brought-over-article from PtW. While some people argue that articles should be created perfect they are not. While it would be less troublesome to those of us in the NPP is these articles were sandboxed until creators were done with their initial efforts, the tradition is to construct them in article space because article building used to be a collaborative effort. Nowadays, new article (at least to en.W) creators must run a gauntlet of deletion attempts. For cripes sake, if it has an article on another W and is being worked on in English, let's give those who are here to build the encyclopedia a chance to build it. (I'm part of the problem too, I speedied it as a cross language duplicate. Why is this even a criterion?). What I and anyone else with deletion in our hearts should do is engage the creator before whipping out the deletion templates.(I bare the blame for this AfD. I speedied it. If I'd userfied, we would be less likely to want it deleted the second time).<rant /> Dloh cierekim 13:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The issue here is that the page potentially may defame the corporation. This is why I brought it here. It was already on my watch list,and you bear no blame. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't feel the intent is to defame based on the creator's tone. If the creator could remove any negative content till it's sourced, it would be less problematic. Do we still have a BLP noticeboard? Haven't been there in a while. Blah. to little sleep. Dloh cierekim 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CommentOne may not intend to do something, but one can still achieve that result. Because it is a corporation WP:BLPN has little value. We just need to ensure that the article is either sourced or deleted. That was my objective in this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CommentI have adressed 11 sources for this articles of the main Brazilian news portals, since the events are happening in Brazil. In addition, I have added Brazilian authorities reports about the company. Hope to add more in a near future. Duda100 Duda100 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
You may have discovered the the secret to life, the universe, and everything Dloh cierekim 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. The article is properly and widely sourced. By the language used, the author seems to be neutral and factual. Verifying the the sources, one can notice it include all the major news portals in Brazil, which seems relevant enough to be significant to be featured on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontiersanders ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. The wikipedia collaboration team was able to add in three days, more than 20 sources of major news portals that are following the company and this article is completely in line with the Portuguese/Brazilian article. I´m comfortable to vote to the keeping of the article. Thanks to all contributors.-- Duda100 ( talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

SURI (Suppressable Unanimous Rogue Infiltrator)

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

This is a non-notable in-universe topic with no reliable sources. In fact I suspect it may be an invention of the author: the topic is not mentioned in any of the sources given nor anywhere else on the web. The content is therefore totally unsuitable for a merge, and the title is not a useful redirect. — Noiratsi ( talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fancruft of the sketchiest sort. As above, nothing here worth merging. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not seem to actually exist, or Google has never never heard of it, at least. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not independently notable fancruft not passing WP:GNG with WP:NOTINHERITED. Looks hoax-y. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Absolutely fancruft of a non-notable, in-unverse topic that is so trivial that it doesn't even qualify as a redirect title. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. 'nough said? Fleet Command ( talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dave Huckaba

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Article was deleted earlier this year and he still has only 1 top tier fight since his only fight since the previous deletion was not a top tier one. CSD was denied. Papaursa ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dustin Center

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

MMA fighter with only 4 matches, none of them top tier, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Tommie Barfield

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

I cannot find enough reliable information for an article to be justified. Not enough notability. Tco03displays ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from creator. Boldly re formatting for readabilityI am working on it as she was pretty instrumental in both Collier County and Marco Island. The elementary school was named after her due to her contributions to the education system. She was also noted by the State of Florida as part of the Great Floridian program. More information will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carees ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 8'10" between creation and tagging for deletion seems a bit hasty. Reliable sourcing for a person from this era is often available only in print. Also, such an early tagging may have a chilling effect on the creator's efforts. They may well have information and sourcing that they are now discouraged from adding. Furthermore, 8'10" is hardly sufficient time for an exhaustive search for sourcing. Dloh cierekim 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep plent of very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering life work, home, and legacy. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial or obituary site, and this certainly doesn't look like passing WP:BIO notability requirement on any other ground. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
This woman died in 1949. I hardly think the article can be considered an obituary. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is sufficient information to establish that Barfield passes the WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a concern; and a {{ trout}} is to be applied to the nominator for nominating the article for deletion eight minutes after creation. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There was a book written about her. Perdichizzi A girl called Tommie in the Further reading section. Dloh cierekim 23:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Perhaps being included in the list of Great Floridians makes her notable, but pretty please, the article needs to be expanded. As of the current version, it still reads, with all due respect, like a biography of someone who is not notable (totally ordinary). Being an education administrative official and one of the first settlers in a given place, by itself, does not cut it. I also looked at the cited sources and all I see are snippets of passing mention. Please expand with better sources, and make it clear why the subject is notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Hopefully the creator will return. I am reminded to post a note to Wikipedia:FLORIDA to take the article in hand. Dloh cierekim 15:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:GNG is apparent from a cursory book search. Nominator is advised to read WP:BEFORE. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- many reliable sources (and the naming of a school is in itself a reliable source of notability). What others said about biting 8 minutes after creation. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

William Drummond Matheson

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

Reason

Lack of a reliable source to confirm he was indeed a flying ace. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't have access to it, but this source appears to be fairly definitive: Shores, Christopher; Franks, Norman; Guest, Russell (1990). Above the Trenches: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the British Empire Air Forces 1915-1920. Grub Street. ISBN  978-0948817199. There are small mentions elsewhere, along with, presumably, documentation of whatever earned him the Military Cross, but I'm not sure there's enough for notability, especially without being able to confirm whether he's listed in Above the Trenches. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Neither Above the Trenches nor its Supplement lists him. Georgejdorner ( talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. That pretty much puts the fork in the hopes of sourced notability here, I think. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm all alone in this, I suppose, but I don't find any of these arguments for retention convincing. The Flight International mention linked below and Supplement to the London Gazette 30064 are merely mentions of his receipt of the Military Cross. His mention in Supplement to the London Gazette 29852 is an entirely routine notice of an appointment. It's not in question that he was awarded the Military Cross, but the Military Cross is a third-level decoration, far from the expectations of WP:MILPEOPLE. I simply do not see a place in the notability guidelines for "everyone who downed five planes is inherently notable" absent anything else nontrivial about him in reliable sources, hand-waving efforts to declare otherwise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Articles on air aces notwithstanding. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Indeed, I would have suggested a redirect to List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories in lieu of deletion, but since the only evidence of his ace status is a citation that notes four of his air victories were on unspecified "other occasions", he does not satisfy the inclusion requirements for that list! Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep his Military Cross citation says he downed five aircraft. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If his MC citation says he was an ace then he was an ace. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Here's a source from 1918. Aces are notable, as are kings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A citation in The London Gazette trumps a non-mention in Above the Trenches. How many times are we going to have to go through this? Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If the consensus has been that downing five aircraft = fighter ace = WP notability (not unreasonable) then there are no grounds for deletion. The London Gazette is a reliable source. -- AJHingston ( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Whatsonstage.com Awards

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

Article about a non-notable website that gives various theatre awards based on votes by the general public. The article consists of several unsourced claims, name dropping and operational details of the website. The current and available sources are insufficient for establishing WP:ORGDEPTH notabilty. The sources are mostly blogs and mere mentions in a couple of newspapers and books. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this website/organization in any detail whatsoever. Also fails WP:NOT#INTERNET. - Mr X 14:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • WhatsOnStage.com is a notable theatre website in the UK and it's awards are revered by industry professionals and the theatre going public alike. The article includes a selection of celebrities that have performed and/or hosted the awards ceremonies, and is no more name dropping than the "Laurence Olivier Award" page - /info/en/?search=Laurence_Olivier_Award. The operational details refered to in the article are about the voting prodecures of the awards and not the website.
Please advise on the unsourced claims you refer to so that I can either reference or omit them.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
If these awards are notable, it should be easy to find a few sources that have written about the awards collectively, as opposed to writing about individual award winners. I will strike the "unsourced claims" comment, since it's not relevant to a deletion discussion anyway. 18:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added a reference from Delfont Mackintosh to the history section and another to the judging section from the metro newspaper, does that suffice? Wikibenh ( talk) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

*Delete - non-notable awards. Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I've added recent award winners with references to national newspapers quoting award winners. These awards are notable and considered 2nd only to the Oliviers, please explain anything else I need to add to prove notability. Wikibenh ( talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The references look promising so I change to Keep. Simply south.... .. eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikibenh ( talk) 16:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The awards do get coverage by The Guardian [1] and others. Dream Focus 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and wikify -- We do not allow Awards categories, and instead expect the awards to be listified as an article. The corollary is that we should keep the awards articles, even for not very notable ones. IN this case, it is obvious to me that many of the recipients are notable, as would be obvious if the appropriate links were made. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I was not aware that we don't allow awards categories. Could you please provide a link to that policy? - Mr X 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, it seems to be contradicted by this Category:Theatre awards. - Mr X 22:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Follow up -- Category:Theatre awards is a category of articles on awards. The normal outcome of a WP:CFD on an award (winners) category - which is what these are - is "listify and delete". It follows that we should keep the related list articles: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this main article. Sufficient coverage of these awards exists in reliable sources to justify having an article about them on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily think that we need all the subarticles; they might just as well be merged into one or more larger lists, but that question could in the first instance by addressed by normal editorial processes.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these awards are highly notable. This years awards already have articles by the BBC, The Guardian, The Express and the Belfast Telegraph less than a few hours after being announced. Look at last years and you will find more than enough coverage in third part reelable sources to prove this meets WP:GNG. Not enough research was carried out to prove this did not meet GNG. Blethering Scot 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bayt.com

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

Very highly promotional article with at most very borderline notability . The awards are minor, the many references mere announcements or PR. Recreated at AfC after G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm not sure where the article is promotional; the article is written in a neutral tone and lists just major milestones of Bayt.com's history. Sure, some of the references may be PR, but they are reported on major regional publications with wide regional viewership. The aim is to present Bayt.com as a talked-about, notable organization in the Middle East region. Bayt.com is a significant online job board serving the whole Middle East and has a Global Alexa Rank of 1,498 (as of December 2), so it is quite notable even globally. As a brand, Bayt.com is widely recognizable in the Middle East and is considered one of the leading, successful online companies, surviving even the dot-com bubble of 2000-2001. Disclosure: I wrote this article. -- Superleda ( talk) 09:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article looks great. Whoever made it knows Wikipedia rules and knows that they references they are using are not permitted per WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per DGG. Promotional. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • All right, how do we make this non-promotional? Any help would be much appreciated. Superleda ( talk) 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem that it has attracted sufficient coverage to broaden the article beyond its current state, unfortunately. They may come in time. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Channel One Cup (football). There was no consensus regarding the other subsidiary articles. However some comments indicated support for a merger of the subsidiary articles but I suggest discussing this on the Channel One Cup (football) talk page first and then bringing those articles back to AfD in a dedicated discussion later if needed. As far as this discussion is concerned, there was no consensus for a deletion or merger of the subsidiary articles. ( non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Channel One Cup (football)

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. No reason to delete this articles. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media, not only in sports media, for example see [2] [3] [4] etc. Best clubs of the leagues took part in it. Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [5]. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt ( talk) 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This tournament had a lot of media coverage in Russia and Ukraine as well as other former Soviet states. I am always baffled when people with no knowledge in certain topics will take it upon themselves to rid Wikipedia of articles that don't matter to them just because they never heard of them. This nomination for deletion is a just another example of WP:Bias, because certain editors only want to present the "Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world." -- Bogu Slav 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please can you evidence that significant coverage? Your unfounded accusations of BIAS show how weak your claims are, you are grasping at straws. Giant Snowman 09:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you illustrate my point. YOU don't know about this topic, therefore it must be not important. But, since you ask, I will spend some of my time showing some examples.
Here is a list of the news articles on ua-football.com from December 2008 (just one month):
  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
  7. [12]
  8. [13]
  9. [14]
  10. [15]
  11. [16]
  12. [17]
  13. [18]
  14. [19]
  15. [20]
  16. [21]
Lets try another major Ukrainian football website, terrikon.com, looking just for the month of December 2008:
  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]
  5. [26]
  6. [27]
  7. [28]
  8. [29]
  9. [30]
  10. [31]
  11. [32]
  12. [33]
  13. [34]
  14. [35]
  15. [36]
  16. [37]
  17. [38]
  18. [39]
I can do the same thing for websites such as sport-express.ru, football.ua, sports.ru, sport.ua, hotsport.ua, comments.ua/sport, ua.championat.com, sportbox.ru, ukrfootball.kiev.ua, dynamomania.com, ukrainianfootball.com as well as many others which will all have a lot of coverage of this tournament. Anything who follows football in Ukraine, Russia, and the former Soviet states would know of this tournament.-- Bogu Slav 20:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Good job! Kills any argument for "deletion" (which weren't even made so far). 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 08:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, non-notable pre-season friendly tournament. season articles are clear contraventions of WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down ( talk) 16:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously. While it existed it got huge coverage and it's cancellation (mostly due to Abramovich not wanting to invest in it anymore because of other businesses) had a big effect. Organizers of many other tournaments like the United Tournament mentioned this tournament as an inspiration, which shows it has legacy. The fact is, it got much more coverage and weight than the CIS Cup, and in fact "stole the spotlight" from it. The links are in the article, hope whoever nominated the article will now look at them. 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 08:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable as shown by Nickst and by BoguSlav, whose expressed concern about mitigating English Wikipedia's inherent geographic systemic bias is also valid. The annual articles may be excessive in detail, and could possibly be merged into the main article, but that question can presumably be handled through normal editing processes.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I disagree that the notability here is clear. There is a little meat on the bone though, mostly in the cancellation story, and the legacy. Gigs ( talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep parent article, merge any useful content from season articles into parent and then delete the seasons. There appears to be a decent amount of coverage for the competition, but individual pages for a few unsourced football results for each of three years and a couple of sentences for the cancelled year is excessive, and wouldn't swamp the parent. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The tournament was a big deal in the participating countries, and even after its cancellation many similar tournaments, like Match World Cup and the new United Tournament explicitly took the format of the channel one cup and the organisers of those tournaments stated that the success of channel one cup showed them that such a tournament will work. I think this article has right to be on Wikipedia just like the article about the Anglo-Italian cup has a right to be, and definitely has more right then articles about the Manga Cup and Copa del Sol. Sunderland against Di Canio ( talk) 14:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Fair point! That tournament is definitely more important in terms of legacy in terms of impact then the Anglo-Italian Cup, the [Anglo-Scottish Cup]], the Audi Cup and the Premier League Asia Trophy, and DEFINITELY more important than the Telekom Cup, Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu and the Joan Gamper Trophy. I smell an anti-East European bias in those nominations to be honest. 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep parent article, merge and delete the season-articles per Struway. While this tournament probably is a notable subject, there is no need to have four WP:SPINOFF-articles that covers the same subject. Mentoz86 ( talk) 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Equity Awards. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Equity Award for Most Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

Equity Award for Most Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

whilst the Equity Awards may be notable, individual subcategories like this may not be. the only hits I could find are WP mirrors. the articles cites its own website. no third party coverage of this actual subcategory.

for the same reasons I am nominating:

These awards have only existed for 2 years, nothing like the Logies.

LibStar ( talk) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - WP:SPINOUT articles for the lead article Equity Awards. Awards with multiple categories usually generate these sorts of lists as sub-articles of the lead article. Merging these large charts of winners and nominees will make the lead article extremely ungainly and, since the presenting organization shows no indication that the awards will be discontinued so the ungainliness of a merged lead article will only get worse over time. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have now also nominated Equity Awards, if the parent is of questionable notability, its subcategories are on shaky ground. LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge,Looking at the articles, they are not at all too large to merge into a common article for the awards. 'DGG (at NYPL)' ( talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per DGG. Since the main article has now been kept, the content of these sub-articles should not be deleted. For now, as DGG says, there's room for this content in the main article. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a technical !vote. There is no objection to a merge - the question there is purely an editing one and they might later be demerged in any event. This is not case where the topic is notable only in context; the award stands in its own right and is not dependent on who else was given an award on the night. -- AJHingston ( talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Josh Rafferty

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

Unreferenced article about an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroes (TV series). Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

9th Wonders!

9th Wonders! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources attest to the real-world notability of the fictional construct. The few sources that do mention it do so in passing and only in terms of the fiction from which it's drawn. The show in which the comic appears is unquestionably notable but that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by every aspect of it. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dhavalakeerthi

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

Not notable. Living person with no significance. Even the site has little. prat ( talk) 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Article about a non-notable living person. There isn't enough coverage about him in reliable sources for a complete article. Rahul ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- I've added in the stub templates. A million hits on Google are not required to establish notability. The article is reliably sourced. Every article in the living persons category [40] is about people notable in their respective fields. This article has enough sources for a stub. However, a request for more sources can be made, deleting the article doesn't look particularly constructive.-- Aayush18 ( talk) 08:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think "jainworld.com", "jainheritagecenters.com", "Akalanka-educational-trust.com" and "Herenow4u.net" qualifies as reliable sources. -- Rahul ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreating per the comments below. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lemon Bay / Myakka Trail Scenic Highway

Lemon Bay / Myakka Trail Scenic Highway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyied and pasted from this page. Content from Florida state government is PD, but it is not entirely clear that the government (Florida DOT in this case) actually published the site. Also, PD is not a license to copy without attribution. All diffs of the page contain the offending text, so deletion and recreation without the plagiarism is the best recourse. – Fredddie ™ 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and recreate a non-plagiarized version of this article. The content is notable enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 01:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Admr Boltz 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, delete and recreate—the topic should have an article, but this isn't the way to go about it. CSD G12 would apply if it weren't for the ambiguity over FDOT's role in creating the website that was copied here. (I agree that even if we didn't have that ambiguity, the content needs attribituion, but that would be easily resolved.) Imzadi 1979  → 02:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Media curation

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

Doesn't seem like an especially notable topic. It's had maintenance tags related to notability and sourcing on it since 2010 without any major improvement. Reads more like an essay than an article. clpo13( talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete and possibly wp:NUKEANDPAVE at that. A badly written orphan article after three and a half years, incredibly badly referenced, and seemingly non notable. Neonchameleon ( talk) 11:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

WISE 1405+5534

WISE 1405+5534 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this system meets WP:NASTRO. However, this one seems to have a small amount more coverage than others (although likely not enough to be significant), so I think this needs some AfD discussion. StringTheory11 ( t •  c) 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - appears to fail wp:NASTRO on all accounts. Neonchameleon ( talk) 11:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Given that it was estimated to be only 12.4 ly from Earth and is included in List of nearest stars at 16 ly. I still doubt whether Wikipedia benefits from deleting as many brown dwarf articles as possible, especially the ones that are less than 30 ly from Earth. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - It appears that more recent measurements put this one's distance at over 25 light years (meaning that it should be deleted from the List of nearest stars, as WISE 0410+1502 was deleted from the list earlier, for the same reason). As such, if it doesn't qualify for the List of nearest stars, it seems that it's a lot closer to failing WP:NASTRO... -- IJBall ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
But even then WISE 1405+5534 still counts as once having been considered one of the Sun's nearest neighbors. I am not comfortable deleting such articles. Besides, WP:NASTRO would suggest to MERGE not delete such an article . -- Kheider ( talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It was considered closer, but not anymore. These are difficulties with measurement. Hekerui ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. At the very least does it have a history of measurements. -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete fails criteria of WP:NASTCRIT and does not belong on List of nearest stars either according to new data. Sufficient mention in List of brown dwarfs. Hekerui ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Seriously, the one line in the table? There is more information here than that. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I hope I didn't come across as mean. We have many objects for whom we could give the technical detail we give to this brown dwarf so we must excercise consideration on which to include unless we become a directory. Aside from the criteria, this one does not fall under closest stars anymore so I doubt it merits an article anymore. Hekerui ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
You do come across as extreme when it comes to enforcing WP:NASTRO, which by the way says to merge, not delete. When you and the Wiki-reich are done the only thing left in Category:Brown dwarfs will be the hypothetical Nemesis. I am somewhat surprised the whole category has not been nominated for deletion given that they are all below naked-eye visibility. -- Kheider ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Far from being a mere database entry. Multiple academic sources allow to build a meaningful encyclopedic article with lots of reliable, neutral, encyclopedic information: it thus meets the the reasons behind notability requirements. Another case showing that WP:NASTRO creates more problem than it solves, and it should be amended.-- cyclopia speak! 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above keeps. Fotaun ( talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sydney Grammar Old Boys Rugby Club

Sydney Grammar Old Boys Rugby Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a very amateur club that is a sixth division side (lowest level). created by a single purpose editor who is obviously a club member. LibStar ( talk) 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - obvious single purpose editor as the only person who's bothered with the page. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – Fails WP:GNG - can't find multiple independent reliable sources. No notability due to historical reasons, influence etc. Clear delete. -- Shudde talk 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No decent independent sources to establish any claim to notability, plays at a very low level and no historical impact on the game. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edmund Leighton#List of works. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

To the Unknown Land

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

No indication of significance or notability. I cannot find sufficient information on the subject on the internet. Tco03displays ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Given that this is a painting by Edmund Leighton, not by his more famous namesake Frederic Leighton, there would need to be clear evidence to make an individual work by him notable in its own right. Clearly it made, and has made, some impact but I have been unable to find much other than some people like it. If it had been used in a major advertising campaign, discussed at length by a well known critic, etc then things might be different. -- AJHingston ( talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak redirect to Edmund_Leighton#List_of_works. There were a few hits out there, but not much. There's just enough here to where someone could probably argue a keep based upon that, but there's really not much in the article. If someone can find more to flesh out the article I'd support a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_December_4&oldid=1142632610"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 3 December 5 December >

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) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

L.W. Hodge

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

Article about a non-notable filmmaker. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - Mr X 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches including Google News provided nothing substantial aside from another NYTimes link, which is a reliable source but both links mention him in passing. All around, it seems he is indeed best known for the "Unforgivable" videos in addition to his other YouTube stuff. I would suggest a redirect to Gunnar Stansson but I don't really think there's much for him there either. I should also mention that searches under his alias Aerobiz found nothing as well as Main Attrakionz. Obviously, he's simply known as a YouTube video maker. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sourcing, no desire to merge. JodyB talk 05:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

International Japanese–English Translation Conference

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no merge discussion for over a year. Puffin Let's talk! 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Japan Association of Translators. Although the target article is also unsourced, Google Books finds several mentions. My !vote presumes that the organization will satisfy GNG. If the decision is to merge, I would lose the list of meetings, but keep information in the lead section. Cnilep ( talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this conference meets the basic notability criteria. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete fails WP:GNG. Gbooks contains mainly proceedings from this conference. This is not third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Cnilep. Keep the lead section in a better place. The list, meh. Jus da fax 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_Power_Rangers_characters#G. JodyB talk 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Goldar

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers 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) 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spawn villains. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Urizen (comics)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Spawn (comics) 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) 01:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JodyB talk 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Matthew Clarke (actor)

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

WP:GNG not satisfied. Not a notable actor. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Next_of_Kin_(TV_series)#Characters - Minor actor with his Next of Kin being his best known work in addition to his recent work as a "location manager" which would hardly receive much significant attention. Everything is supported by IMDb with no other links or information to add to the article. I should mention that detailed searches including Google News provided nothing. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- a redirect of an actor to his character is not appropriate, unless the article is substantially expanded to tell us what he was doing before and after. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life.. Based upon the reading of policies I think the redirect is the proper course. The article can be recreated should his notability increase in the future. JodyB talk 05:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rolf Dinsdale

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

Yet another case where someone jumped the gun by creating an article about an unelected candidate in a local election. It dances right on the edge of being a campaign brochure, including analysis of his positions and a subjective quote about his opinion of Justin Trudeau, and completely fails to provide any real demonstration that he actually gets past another notability guideline to counterbalance his failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 06:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 06:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life. If he were a.n.other candidate in a local election, I'd probably support deletion. However, the election which Rolf Dinsdale stood in was a federal one, not a local one and he nearly won, coming within 400 votes of victory in a seat previously held by his father. So, while that doesn't merit a standalone article, it does mean that he's a plausible search term. WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." I believe in this case, brief mentions in context in the father's article would be more appropriate than deletion or a simple redirect to the election article, redirects being cheap. Valenciano ( talk) 09:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. Not independently notable. It might be ok to merge a bit of this article, but most of it is trivia (e.g. Shit From Hell isn't a notable band, and we don't need the lengthy quotes). -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. It is my opinion that the page should be kept, and edited if need be. Dinsdale was a candidate for a major Canadian political party, in a federal by-election, and almost won. As to the point that I jumped the gun in creating the page, it should be pointed out that Dinsdale was leading in many pre-election polls, in a Conservative party stronghold. As for the section discussing his positions, I always find it helpful to have some indication of a political candidate's views on several matters. The quote, however, does seem unhelpful in hindsight, so I apologise for that. Also, I'm not entirely sure it's that appropriate to state "following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail." Thanks. NHCLS ( talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Leading in the polls during an election campaign" does not in and of itself make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and what happened to Dinsdale is exactly the reason why that's the case: he led all the polls, but still lost — because the voters who actually showed up to actually mark actual ballots turned out not to be a representative sample of what the poll respondents were saying. (There is a reason politicians say "the only poll that matters is the one on election day".) Either way, the rule about politicians on Wikipedia is that if you can't make a credible case that a person was already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate in an election, then the mere fact of running in an election doesn't make them any more notable than they were before — with extremely rare exceptions they have to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat ( talk) 06:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, you're misquoting me. I didn't say that "he continues to fail", period, end of sentence; I said that "he continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN". Sure, it would have been inappropriate commentary if I'd ended the sentence where you quoted me as ending it — but I didn't. It wasn't a comment on his basic worth as a human being; it was a comment on his lack of meeting a specific Wikipedia inclusion rule. Bearcat ( talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Really sorry. I don't see how I misread that; I think I was just pretty frustrated that this article, which I think should be kept, was probably going to be deleted as well as the wording of the statement, in my opinion, made me sound like a Liberal Party of Canada tool. On the issue of his not winning, I agree that you have a very valid point, however, he does seem to have done a lot of work with Facebook in Canada, which might be grounds for keeping the article. However, if the article is deleted, I do not believe it should be changed to a redirect, just outright deleted. Once again, sorry about the misquote. Thanks. NHCLS ( talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
In terms of WP:OUTCOMES, that does say: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question" (emphasis mine.) If this person was a nobody whose only claims to notability were standing and losing, who bombed badly in a general election, deletion would be clear. However here we have someone who stood in a by-election (special election) and very nearly won, someone who is the son of the former longstanding representative for that district, someone who plays in a punk band of borderline notability and who got a bit of press coverage, albeit related to the election. I've had a look and I quite agree with the nominator that that coverage is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but this is one of the clearest cases for a redirect that I've seen, given the other circumstances, as content which people who come here may well search and could be preserved as a brief, sourced line or two in either the by-election article or the father's article. (Suggest the latter.) Valenciano ( talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Chesterfield Quarterback League

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

I am not sure if this article meets notability. It seems that there are no sources (besides a dead link) for this youth league, though there are a few NFL players that started out from this league. Natg 19 ( talk) 09:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've never found a youth leauge to be notable and I see no reason that this one should be. I cannot find any notability measure that would make it so. There is some coverage found online, but it is all local coverage. It doesn't matter if any notable players started in the league because all notable players started someplace. If there was widespread coverage about this particular league, it would be different. I just don't see it.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lexx episodes. postdlf ( talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I Worship His Shadow

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

Plot summary only of one episode of a series. No sign of notability. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to List of Lexx episodes. While the first episode of a multi-season series is the sort of thing that might realistically be able to support an article, this is nothing but a badly overlong plot summary. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 schools in Rotherham#Independent schools. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rudston Preparatory School

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

Non-notable primary school as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Drm310 ( talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of schools in Rotherham#Independent schools - fails WP:ORG. As is usual practice for primary schools redirect seems a constructive way forward. The Whispering Wind ( talk)
  • Redirect-yeah, I'll go with that. It's just a nonsense article. Totally fails WP:ORG. Atlas-maker ( talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (rather than plain redirect). This is (in the terms of other countries) a private school; hence rather different from the typical state school. Alternatively the merge target might be a list of prep schools in Yorkshire. English Public schools are generally for 13-18; and prep schools 8-13, preparing pupils for entrance to public schools. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I should be happy to support a merge, but where? I have had a good look for a better target but without success. I am not aware of a List of preparatory schools in Yorkshire or similar, for example. Indeed, the problem with such a list is that it is likely to be composed mainly of grey links as most of the schools would be nn. Mentioning the school at Rotherham would be undue weight and more content at List of schools in Rotherham would be out of keeping with the rest of the list. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I'd add that I don't agree that independent schools are any more inherently notable than state schools. Thats just snobbery. Atlas-maker ( talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 military electronics of the United States. Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

AN/ASQ-119

AN/ASQ-119 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to List of military electronics of the United States, an appropriate location for a brief description. It could be argued that the AN/ designation is prima facie evidence of notability, but (barring sufficient sources for an expansion) an inclusive list of these types would be better than a series of stubs in this instance. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I may be flirting with WP:AGF here but I don't see indication that nominator considered alternatives to deletion. ~ KvnG 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An unsourced article of a fictional character. Redirect doesn't match well as a fictional character would redirect to a cast list. JodyB talk 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ray Barnett

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ştefan Balş

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

No references, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Google Books is giving me a lot of hits in Romanian, as I might expect. A reading of the article suggests the sort of accomplishments that ought to be covered in reliable sources; that those sources aren't included in the article (or aren't in English) does not a reason for deletion make. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF criterion 3. A year before his death, he was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy, and I would argue that any member of that body is notable.
  • Having said that, yes, the lack of references is glaring, and at some point, that should be addressed. Unfortunately, what's online, even in books, is mainly just routine mentions (Balş restored this church, Balş restored that church), so this article may actually require (!) print sources. - Biruitorul Talk 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Enough has emerged including his election to the Romanian Academy to show that he is notable. Moreover, there is no reason to suggest that the article is incorrect although it could doubtless be considerably expanded. -- AJHingston ( talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As mentioned, qualifies under WP:PROF#3. He is also subject of a biography in the Grove Dictionary of Art.. Actually, on further review, Delete as a verbatim copy of copyrighted text from Grove. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Brickbat Revue

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

Non-notable broadsheet lacking non-trivial support. Ghits and GNews lack substance. reddogsix ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This publication has not received the necessary notice by independent sources. The references in the article are mostly about one of the founders of the publication; the others are passing mentions. Google and Google News Archive searches find nothing of significance. -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Brickbat Revue is an LA based broadsheet that services the local black community by providing an outlet for African-American poets to print their original works. It also provides political and cultural analysis of the events in the local black community. Although it has a limited internet presence because it is a broadsheet that is difficult to reproduce on the internet, it is a valuable resource with a dedicated local readership that deserves to be highlighted on Wikipedia. The black community has so few media outlets to cover its artistic scene and it would be a shame to remove a reference to a viable small media outlet, that is keeping independent print journalism alive in its on small way, from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamj2 ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Lisamj2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • In the world of online literary journals Brickbat Revue is a rarity. It reaches back and borrows from Wallace Berman's Semina, it is reminiscence of the Aspen Wall Posters. Original work that is a true labor of love. While Teka Lark is one of the most innovative poets in L.A. this project sadly includes none of her work. It includes the work of people of note in the L.A. literary an art scene. Original pieces by Brendan Constantine, SA Griffin and Jaha. In times like these it's so important for physical works of art that are underground be preserved, because they are important pieces of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannichi ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl ( talk • contribs) — 1635schl ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I feel that the Brickbat Revue has significant value in L.A.'s literary community.
  1. It has published original works by all authors listed.
  2. S.A. Griffin, Wanda Coleman and Brendan Constantine's work all later went on to be published in book format by respected publisher which signifies the work is significant, not simple reprints of old work.
  3. The Brickbat Revue also has original work by Danny Weizmann one of the original writers at the L.A. Weekly.
  4. The Brickbat Revue is not a vanity press or print on demand, which many small presses in L.A. are, which makes the Brickbat Revue unique.
  5. It's internet footprint is light owing to the owners being a bit luddite in nature and actively trying to keep print alive and shunning the internet a bit, but just because it is not online doesn't mean it's not relevant.
  6. The Brickbat Revue is archived at UC Berkeley, Cal State L.A. and Barnard College.
Brickbat Revue is a substantial literary journal. It is archived in several academic institutions in the U.S. It is a physical archive of the Los Angeles literary scene from the early aughts forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.138.69 ( talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl ( talk • contribs) — 69.115.138.69 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Comment: We don't require references that establish notability to come from online sources. If you can point to off-line sources that show that this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notablity, that is also fine. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with nominator's reasons. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Life on Mars characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Phyllis Dobbs

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

Short article for minor character in Life on Mars (UK TV series) (she is not considered noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the characters section of the main article). When the fluff is cleaned away, can easily be covered in List of Life on Mars characters, where there are listings of equivalent size. HornetMike ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Riley Stearns

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

Also nominating Jo Crocker. Two people with very minor roles in the media, whose only notability is the fact they are the husband of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the sister of Stephen Fry respectively. Can be covered in the personal life sections of their famous connections. HornetMike ( talk) 21:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Crocker, who is certainly NN. Not sure about Stearns, but he probably is too. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<! reply

-- from Template:Relist -->

  • Delete. Stearns is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. He was a writer's assistant and hasn't distinguished himself enough for notability. Jimsteele9999 ( talk) 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of liturgical Hebrew cognates

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

The article consists of a list of Hebrew terms, comparing their pronunciations in the various liturgical traditions.

Firstly, I do not see why this is encyclopedic material; at best, it should be transwikied.

Also, the methods of transcription are idiosyncratic, and the choice of sub-dialects is also unusual (ŋ for ayin in Ashkenazi Hebrew, for instance.) הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is also not a directory, and the English Wikipedia is not for an article in which the information is in another language. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because (a) The Hebrew language is very ancient dating back at least 4,000+ years in its origins and development, so that therefore (b) it is only logical, historically necessary correct, and simple etymology that there are so many variants in its pronunciation. This list is only a tiny fraction of that reality. Now wonder that (c) there are so many articles based on Hebrew words, and hence Category:Hebrew words and phrases. (d) The reason/s cited by the nominator are not valid in this case because of WP:NOTPAPER and this information is highly informative and educational. Also, please take a look at the advice in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (e) User Gilgamesh ( talk · contribs) the creator of this list is a long time reliable editor, knowledgeable in this field, having created this article in 2004! and it would be a great pity that this is lost now. (f) For each word the list cites the common English Biblical usage is cited and then continues with the variances that exists or have existed in Hebrew. By all means improve it, and engage its creator in a WP:AGF discussion how to get that done. (g) Prayer in HEBREW (see List of Jewish prayers and blessings) and Torah study based on HEBREW are central to the practice of Judaism, and therefore the kind of words and how they are used is important. And obviously this is important to both Christianity and Islam as well since they are derived from and borrow from the original Hebrew of Judaism. Thus (h) it is no surprise that there are categories such as Category:Hebrew words and phrases in Jewish prayers and blessings. (i) In a similar and related fashion, there are many examples of lists comparing words and their different usages or origins in all sorts of situations, see for example the vastly differing and often esoteric examples in Category:Lists of English words (with sub-categories such as Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin). On and on what seems "esoteric" it goes, see List of eponymous adjectives in English; List of Latin words with English derivatives. See Category:Arabic words and phrases with List of Quranic names. (j) Bottom line, while the list may "seem" specialized and "out-of-place" -- and like many articles and lists it can and will be improved over time, especially if expert editorial input is requested at WP:TALKJUDAISM -- it nevertheless serves as a valuable and encyclopedic entry demonstrating differences of pronunciation within Hebrew and existing at the same in English in similar forms that would be entirely self-defeating for WP to lose. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    @ IZAK: I assume that you didn't list points a–c and f–h for my benefit?
Let me state my points more clearly; the problems with this article are as follows:
(1) the topic is not encyclopedic, that is, not in the scope of an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY;
(2a) the topic is not independently notable (even if the Hebrew language, its many dialects, Jewish liturgy and its variants all are);
(2b) the list does not serve a conceivable navigational purpose so that it should be kept regardless of notability; and
(3) even if kept or transwikied there are content issues to be dealt with, namely the choice of sub-dialects representing the major dialects (Ashkenazi Hebrew is significant; ŋ-Ashkenazi is not, except in a discussion of all varieties of Hebrew) and consistency in method of transcription.
( Gilgamesh's high quality of editing is completely irrelevant to whether the article is kept.) הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
No contest. It was all original research almost a decade ago, when I was barely starting to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia and its goals. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I should add — there is certainly merit in this study. But my old approach was inappropriately amateurish and entirely unreferenced. The various phonetic traditions should be addressed as topics (which they are in many of the different Hebrew dialect articles), but an indexed, referenced collection of specific traditional pronunciations may have its place on Wiktionary. I've long since had a presence on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I'm perfectly alright with sorting information on their appropriate wikis. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think you are too critical of your own work here; very little referencing is necessary for such an article, as it all follows plainly from descriptions of the various dialects. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Now that I think of it (I'm sorry that I don't articulate my thoughts all at once), there may be a place for relatively short illustrative lexical lists on Wikipedia, to demonstrate the differences in phonetic traditions. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — I think sources can be easily found and all of the information can be listed at the individual articles and Wiktionary entries for each of the names. However, there's no need to have it all in a list. –  Zntrip 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - while it may have passed AfD six years ago, it would fail today. Consensus has changed to eliminate charts of words in various dialects such as this. Bearian ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zeroads

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

Notability not established. I found one single-paragraph blurb in PCWorld reviewing it, no other RS. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. PCworld paragraph mentioned by nom doesn't meet threshold of significant coverage, and a search did not turn up any additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete At first I thought perhaps a merge into FBM Software would be in order, but it is not even clear the company as a whole is notable. If you look at its "in the news" page for example, the last activity was in 2005. It was supposedly based in San Francisco, but could not find any mention at all in the San Francisco Business Journal, which would normally cover any significant company. The only link given in this article went dead over two years ago, see this archive W Nowicki ( talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

ZeroNetHistory

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

Notability not established. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 19:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opposing views. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army)

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep And I don't buy arguments that military history does not belong in the Wikipedia. Hmmm only 373,000 results on Google. And only mentioned in 2,670 books. How disappointing. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Lose the strawman, Hawkeye7, you (should) be better than that. I never said that military history does not belong in Wikipedia. I said that this article gives no indication of notability. I'm seeing tons of sources that list it in large listings of units that exist, but not finding any that are discussing the unit specifically with a level of critical discussion that would meet GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military formations of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this division was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • We definitely would, because this article contains no claim to notability (independent of that it's a large unit) and only one source, which is offline. There's a really simple solution to this, which is "don't create crap articles". All this page has is a listing of places that a unit was stationed. That, in and of itself, gives no claim to notability. You can't just assume that someone with no experience in writing military history articles is going to come along and be able to find sources. I don't have the massive library that Hawkeye7 apparently has; I have to go off of Google searches, and in this case I've got pages of sources that mention it in lists, and nothing that's describing it in specific detail, nothing that would indicate the unit's notability. When all I'm getting are things like "A later landing by the 114th Division was similarly unopposed." or "And the experienced 101st, 106th, 108th, 109th, and 114th were on call-up status." from Google, I've got nothing to go on. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

102nd Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army)

102nd Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Another well-known regiment of the Imperial Japanese Army. Arrived in January 1943 and fought in the Huon Peninsula campaign and later around Wewak. A quick check shows a plethora of mentions in Dexter, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

144th Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army)

144th Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Holy cow. This is the regiment around which the South Seas Detachment was built. That makes it one of the most notable Japanese Army regiments of the Pacific War. -- Yaush ( talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Yes, it is one of the best-known and most notable regiments in the Imperial Japanese Army. Pull any book on the war in New Guinea and you will find references to. But start with Miller, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 00:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Gregory Hodge

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

Non-notable high school educator. Although Hodge was the topic of a very nice New York Daily News profile on the occasion of his retirement, that appears to be the only coverage available for him. The school he headed is notable, but he as an individual does not appear to be. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete unless other evidence comes to light. I'd note that this page has been speedy-deleted before as mentioned on the article creator's usertalk page and the new page appears to have been posted just after the speedy deletion of the old one (and I think only a minute later). Neonchameleon ( talk) 18:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Other evidence came to light. Change to Keep Neonchameleon ( talk) 01:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Change to keep -- Yngvadottir ( talk · contribs) has done yeoman's work in finding other sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The news coverage now in the article is enough for WP:GNG. (I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but WP:PROF is not really aimed at educators at the secondary school level so GNG is the more appropriate notability criterion.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I've not yet been able to find any information on his earlier teaching, but I found and added several extended discussions of his work in newspapers, and some book sources. He is one of the principals given a chapter-length profile in a Heritage Foundation book, so I added that as Further reading. I think the article now demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Shelby Walker

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and a career record of 2 wins and 3 losses. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails NMMA--I think nom says it all. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. 173.171.115.72 ( talk) 09:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think it's salient to note that her stats are low because of her premature death. I don't know if that matters all that much, but it ought to count for something in one direction or another. Also, I think it's salient that at the time of her death, she was engaged to Denis Kang (who is notable, and whose weak record since 2006 is generally attributed to her death), and perhaps some of her information could be incorporated into that article. Lockesdonkey ( talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Carina Damm

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

One top tier might does not meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is routine sports reporting. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rin Nakai

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

Lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dick Cardinal

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

I found nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. The only coverage I could find were one line mentions or his name in a list of names and that's not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything to show he meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not sure what the notability standards are for carnival/side-show wrestlers, but there's no record of him competing in actual sporting events that would show notability. The sources are one line mentions or his name in a list of fellow carnival wrestlers which I don't think is enough to meet WP:GNG. There's also nothing independent to show he's a notable wrestling coach. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG nor do I see him satisfy any other notability criteria. The claims in the article aren't enough to show notability and are either unsourced or fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa ( talk) 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author blanked Jac16888 Talk 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of most runways at an airport

List of most runways at an airport (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, and possible WP:OR. Is the amount of runways a airport have a important characteristic or trivia? The article was proded but the editor who created it, took down the prod without explanation. ...William 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. - BilCat ( talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's unsourced, it's original research, even the title barely makes sense. I doubt it even satisfies the general notability guideline - a paragraph in the Guinness book of records is not sufficient. bobrayner ( talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. My initial Google search on this found discussions of the topic at some aircraft enthusiast websites and general information websites like Yahoo Answers, but not anywhere that I'd consider a clearly reliable source establishing notability of "most runways" as a list topic. The topic is not inherently unencyclopedic, however; for example, a properly sourced statement that an airport has the most (or among the most) runways would be appropriate to include in that airport's article. Searching the phrase "most runways" is tricky, so it's possible something might turn up.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I suspect that this article is badly mis-named. It seems to be a list of the number of runways by airport, with the "most" referring only to the top entry not the topic. As such, this information is surely available for the majority of airports and cannot be considered OR, just unreferenced. So if the topic is deemed notable, this page could be moved and not deleted. I see it as the sort of topic a serious researcher might be interested in, though referencing its notability might be difficult. However, to look a little wider, it might be better still to merge the content with the List of longest runways content into a single sortable multi-column table at say List of airport runways, before deleting the present nonsensical title after all I have said. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete basically this is something that might pop up in a trivia quiz down at the pub, but otherwise it is a pointless comparison without a clear purpose that falls foul of WP:NOT and its admonishment that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - number of runways is certainly not a corollary to how busy a given airport is; for example Honolulu with its six runways has fewer movements than Sydney with its three runways, and I'd bet that Edwards doesn't have anywhere near the same number of movements as either of them. This would be as worthwhile having as List of airports by land area. YSSYguy ( talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Falls afoul of both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt ( talk) 21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nomination. -- John ( talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I don't see the notability of the article, it's just an unsourced compilation that borders original research. -- Jetstreamer  Talk 23:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Snow delete - completely useless list, "runway" isn't even defined. Heathrow had as many as 12 runways at one time, but isn't even mentioned. Mjroots ( talk) 10:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment The article's creator blanked the page. ...William 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: copyright violation too, close paraphrasing). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sarvodaya Mahila Vikas Pariyojana

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

This article consists of snippets of text copied from various reports (such as this, this), but with sufficient differences (both in content and title) to lead one to believe that this report is not a direct copy and that this article is not intended to cover the same topic as those links. Since a search for this article's title yields only this article and a few Facebook groups, one may presume that this is not a notable topic for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable group of people. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Vonic

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

In no way notable, but not covered by CSD. Jprg1966  (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources, no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sports Blast radio show

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

No references, could not find very much coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems like there is a consensus not to delete. Which article to merge into which can be settled on the talk page. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zhuyeping

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

Merge to Zhuyeping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Aside from being a duplicate, I have to say that I am disgusted by the creator's decision to mass-create articles using AWB. This article has barely any useful information, other than 'it exists'. It's been a 13 word stub for six plus years now, and I shudder to think of how many other equally useless quality articles this person has created. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge in reverse. Zhuyeping, Sangzhi should merge into [[ Zhuyeping because the Sangzhi part of the name is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate this article so simply Zhuyeping is sufficient. I would possibly say delete for both articles on notability grounds. Rincewind42 ( talk) 04:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge existing human settlements are basically inherently notable, so no deleting please. see WP:NPLACE. agree with Rincewind42, "Zhuyeping" should be title of surviving article, not "Zhuyeping, Sangzhi". - Metal lunchbox ( talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge of Zhuyeping, Sangzhi into Zhuyeping, per Rincewind42 and the fact that the latter was created before the former. Besides this, per WP:BEFORE, why are we having a deletion discussion where the nomination is to propose a merge outcome? -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wudaoshui, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Wudaoshui

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

Merge to Wudaoshui, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shataping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Shataping

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

Merge to Shataping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Longtanping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Longtanping

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

Merge to Longtanping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liujiaping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Liujiaping

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

Merge to Liujiaping, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liaojiacun, Sangzhi. Merge away SarahStierch ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Liaojiacun

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

Merge to Liaojiacun, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lifuta, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lifuta

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

Merge to Lifuta, Sangzhi GZWDer ( talk) 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ruitapu, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch ( talk) 03:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ruitapu

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

Merge to Ruitapu, Sangzhi. GZWDer ( talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. Go for it! Merge away please. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Renchaoxi

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

Duplicate page. There're already Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. GZWDer ( talk) 15:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

LomoX

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

Non- notable software product. Article borders on spam. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Indeed seems to fail GNG. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An interesting project, but not enough coverage in independent reliable sourced. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per criterion 1 (withdrawn by nominator with no one arguing for deletion). Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ecopsychology

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

The article is somewhat redundant but should be deleted because it introduces the uncommon neologism Ecopsychology rather than the more conventional (but still niche) conservation psychology. I propose that this article should be replaced with a redirect to that page. Salimfadhley ( talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - may be uncommon, but there are plenty of sources cited to demonstrate notability. It returns 200k ghits including more than 4k just in Scholar. It's not the same thing as conservation psychology, but clearly related. I don't have expertise in the area, but these two sources discuss both terms: an APA publication & Human Ecology Review article. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With over 4,300 hits on GScholar, this looks like a highly notable topic. The field has its own journal, Ecopsychology and that page, too, distinguishes ecopsychology from conservation psychology. Along with Rhododendrites' sources, there is good evidence in RS that the two fields are considered distinct, and that is good enough for us. The article itself is well-structured has some citations. There might be some synthesis, but nothing that cannot be fixed, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic, good evidence in RS that this is a distinct topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw proposal WP:SNOW. ;-) - yes, it's probably better to clean than delete.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed early per WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 01:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Albany Senior High School, Auckland

Albany Senior High School, Auckland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising and doubtable notabilty The Banner  talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Obviously. It's a secondary school. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • And why should that make it notable and not advertising? The Banner  talk 14:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You know very well why, as you're very well aware of the precedent. And how on earth is this article advertising? What is it advertising? How can a state school advertise anyway? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - It's not policy to keep all secondary schools, but that's the precedent with rare exception (I don't love it either). In this case, it's sourced, and if it's the first state senior high school in the country I don't think there's a question. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Snow keep. Obviously not advertising and just as obviously notable given the multiple sources and the longstanding standards applied to public high school. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - taking the sources in the page with those also available, WP:ORG is met. In addition, "New Zealand's first state senior high school" is another factor. Not advertising, it simply states the facts. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. perfectly standard high school article with no essence of promotion. Proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for high schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep - as th proposer is very well aware. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No opposition to speedy renomination. SarahStierch ( talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Albany Junior High School

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

Advertising and doubtable notability The Banner  talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If it was the first junior high school in New Zealand and its existence is controversial then it's notable. Where's the advertising? That's an utterly spurious claim for a start. How on earth can an article about a state school be advertising? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the reasons cited in the first AfD, which remain valid. Article has multiple sources and is not advertising. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not advertising, "it was the first purpose built Junior High in New Zealand", and no reason why it cannot meet WP:ORG. Research and expansion is the way forward not deletion. Education to year/grade 10 indicates a high school. The Whispering Wind ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to the article about the location. The relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG presently says (after some discussion on the talk page of the notability guideline) "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Being "the first entity of its kind in New Zealand" is not a criterion found in WP:ORG or in WP:N, nor is being "controversial" . Granted,common outcomes of countless AFDs have been the keeping of high school and college articles, since the community of editors finds them to be inherently notable. or alternatively to have a high likelihood of having the quantity and quality of references needed for notability. But the common outcome has been the merging/redirecting of primary school and middle school articles, when there is this little evidence of WP:ORG and WP:N being satisfied. Edison ( talk) 00:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. To bring this here after a previous overwhelming 'keep' discussion is purely and simply disruptive, time wasting, and pointy, as the nominator well knows. Perfectly standard secondary school but the article has some bloated prose that needs recasting and pruning for encyclopedic quality, but otherwise proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for secondary schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Common outcomes is not a reason for keeping, Kudpung. You know that well enough. The Banner  talk 13:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but that precedent is so old and so strong that it can't be ignored just because you don't like it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It is not a high school. It's a middle school, and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD." The previous AFD was not much of a precedent to be citing as a Keep argument, with lots of hand-waving keep argument which were not based on the relevant notability guidelines "It's unusual and controversial" then "Keep per what he said" from several others, along with "It's the first of it's kind in that country" None of that satisfied the relevant notability guidelines, then or now.. This one also has several non-guideline based arguments. There is no clear reason why middle schools in New Zealand should be kept and ones in the US should be redirected. Does it have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage? WP:ORG also requires national coverage; are the new sources covering this school considered national? The NZ Herald is in the same city as the school, so it might be functioning as a local news source and thus might not reflect national importance, even in a relatively small nation, smaller than 25 US states and 10 US cities. Edison ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I'm a strong believer in the established consensus that pieces on all but the most exceptional elementary schools should be redirected to their school district or other governing entity. That said, I think there is a case to be made here that as the "first junior high in New Zealand" this particular school does have a notability hook. Carrite ( talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm not sure how the overlap between NZ and US middle schools compares. Grade 10 is a legal school leaving age in most countries. In the UK there are still a few counties toperatinga three tier system with the middle sschool being something for 10 - 14 year olds. Grade 10 is, I believe still the legal school leaving age, while gredes 11 and 12 of the high schools are often call 'Sixth form colleges' where students prepare mainly for university entrance. So the confusion is when is a secondary school a high school, or a junior high, or a middle school. I've always considered secondary school and high school to be coterminus (but not middle school). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
According to our Secondary education article, New Zealand counts "secondary education" as from years 9 to 13. Albany Junior High School serves years 7-10, so I guess this is in between a middle and a high school. Some editors may argue that since the schools serves a form of secondary education (years 9 and 10), it falls under the blanket notability given to all secondary schools. Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 00:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Years 7 to 10 in New Zealand equate to Grades 6 to 9 in the US. Also, around a third (104 out of 336) of New Zealand secondary schools now start at Year 7 rather than Year 9. Lcmortensen ( mailbox) 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect Claims of controversy are overstated and outdated, therefore fails WP:NOTNEWS. As it is not a High School, it fails GNG. Incidentally, it is not advertising, just poorly written by someone unacquainted with the concept of an encyclopedia. DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G7, author requested) by Wtmitchell. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 11:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lexi Butman (actress)

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

This article does not reference any reliable, non-independent source to establish wp:notability. It also seams to be wp:autobiography, as the photo is attributed to Lexi Butman, but uploaded by the author of the article. Vanjagenije ( talk) 12:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - BLP with no claim to notability. Might even meet CSD. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - there are only a few links. One is to imdb, which has zero credits; only a photo. Now it's clear this is blatant promotion. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Zero notability to be found for an actress who has not appeared in any films. Tarc ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Rhododendrites sums it up nicely. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neutral nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions were voiced. ( non-admin closure) Ramaksoud2000 ( Talk to me) 01:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Telexfree

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

I am bringing this article to AfD because I cannot determine whether it is an attack page on the corporation or not. It is insufficiently well sourced to remain an article as it stands, but does assert sufficient notability to be CSD-proof. I am nominating it in a neutral manner and will form my own judgment as the discussion progresses. Most of the issues with the company in the article as written appear to be with its sister company or companies. Fiddle Faddle 10:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

On the basis of the sources provided I am able to withdraw this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 16:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Hi Guys. We did some researches on internet to write this first version of Telexfree Inc. article, including Telexfree portuguese Wikipedia page and we hope that our team will contribute with more pieces of information. Thanks Duda100 Duda100 10:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I believe the current edit is an attempt to translate the corresponding article on the portuguese Wikipedia, which is appropriately sourced, with plenty of references. Parts of the text are coincident. Maybe after inserting references from its portuguese version, as well as finding english sources, the article might be adequate to stay. Maurício Gomes MMN ( talk) 10:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Non English references are perfectly acceptable. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • All right, then the current english article does need the sources from the portuguese article. I will try to add some. Maurício Gomes MMN ( talk) 11:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
That would be swell. Sorry for the aggravation. Dloh cierekim 14:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThis is a newly brought-over-article from PtW. While some people argue that articles should be created perfect they are not. While it would be less troublesome to those of us in the NPP is these articles were sandboxed until creators were done with their initial efforts, the tradition is to construct them in article space because article building used to be a collaborative effort. Nowadays, new article (at least to en.W) creators must run a gauntlet of deletion attempts. For cripes sake, if it has an article on another W and is being worked on in English, let's give those who are here to build the encyclopedia a chance to build it. (I'm part of the problem too, I speedied it as a cross language duplicate. Why is this even a criterion?). What I and anyone else with deletion in our hearts should do is engage the creator before whipping out the deletion templates.(I bare the blame for this AfD. I speedied it. If I'd userfied, we would be less likely to want it deleted the second time).<rant /> Dloh cierekim 13:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The issue here is that the page potentially may defame the corporation. This is why I brought it here. It was already on my watch list,and you bear no blame. Fiddle Faddle 14:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I don't feel the intent is to defame based on the creator's tone. If the creator could remove any negative content till it's sourced, it would be less problematic. Do we still have a BLP noticeboard? Haven't been there in a while. Blah. to little sleep. Dloh cierekim 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CommentOne may not intend to do something, but one can still achieve that result. Because it is a corporation WP:BLPN has little value. We just need to ensure that the article is either sourced or deleted. That was my objective in this nomination. Fiddle Faddle 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • CommentI have adressed 11 sources for this articles of the main Brazilian news portals, since the events are happening in Brazil. In addition, I have added Brazilian authorities reports about the company. Hope to add more in a near future. Duda100 Duda100 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
You may have discovered the the secret to life, the universe, and everything Dloh cierekim 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. The article is properly and widely sourced. By the language used, the author seems to be neutral and factual. Verifying the the sources, one can notice it include all the major news portals in Brazil, which seems relevant enough to be significant to be featured on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frontiersanders ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP. The wikipedia collaboration team was able to add in three days, more than 20 sources of major news portals that are following the company and this article is completely in line with the Portuguese/Brazilian article. I´m comfortable to vote to the keeping of the article. Thanks to all contributors.-- Duda100 ( talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

SURI (Suppressable Unanimous Rogue Infiltrator)

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

This is a non-notable in-universe topic with no reliable sources. In fact I suspect it may be an invention of the author: the topic is not mentioned in any of the sources given nor anywhere else on the web. The content is therefore totally unsuitable for a merge, and the title is not a useful redirect. — Noiratsi ( talk) 08:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Fancruft of the sketchiest sort. As above, nothing here worth merging. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Does not seem to actually exist, or Google has never never heard of it, at least. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not independently notable fancruft not passing WP:GNG with WP:NOTINHERITED. Looks hoax-y. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Absolutely fancruft of a non-notable, in-unverse topic that is so trivial that it doesn't even qualify as a redirect title. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1. 'nough said? Fleet Command ( talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dave Huckaba

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Article was deleted earlier this year and he still has only 1 top tier fight since his only fight since the previous deletion was not a top tier one. CSD was denied. Papaursa ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 06:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dustin Center

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

MMA fighter with only 4 matches, none of them top tier, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Tommie Barfield

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

I cannot find enough reliable information for an article to be justified. Not enough notability. Tco03displays ( talk) 04:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment from creator. Boldly re formatting for readabilityI am working on it as she was pretty instrumental in both Collier County and Marco Island. The elementary school was named after her due to her contributions to the education system. She was also noted by the State of Florida as part of the Great Floridian program. More information will come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carees ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment 8'10" between creation and tagging for deletion seems a bit hasty. Reliable sourcing for a person from this era is often available only in print. Also, such an early tagging may have a chilling effect on the creator's efforts. They may well have information and sourcing that they are now discouraged from adding. Furthermore, 8'10" is hardly sufficient time for an exhaustive search for sourcing. Dloh cierekim 04:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep plent of very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering life work, home, and legacy. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 05:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial or obituary site, and this certainly doesn't look like passing WP:BIO notability requirement on any other ground. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
This woman died in 1949. I hardly think the article can be considered an obituary. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is sufficient information to establish that Barfield passes the WP:GNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not a concern; and a {{ trout}} is to be applied to the nominator for nominating the article for deletion eight minutes after creation. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There was a book written about her. Perdichizzi A girl called Tommie in the Further reading section. Dloh cierekim 23:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Perhaps being included in the list of Great Floridians makes her notable, but pretty please, the article needs to be expanded. As of the current version, it still reads, with all due respect, like a biography of someone who is not notable (totally ordinary). Being an education administrative official and one of the first settlers in a given place, by itself, does not cut it. I also looked at the cited sources and all I see are snippets of passing mention. Please expand with better sources, and make it clear why the subject is notable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Hopefully the creator will return. I am reminded to post a note to Wikipedia:FLORIDA to take the article in hand. Dloh cierekim 15:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. WP:GNG is apparent from a cursory book search. Nominator is advised to read WP:BEFORE. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- many reliable sources (and the naming of a school is in itself a reliable source of notability). What others said about biting 8 minutes after creation. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

William Drummond Matheson

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

Reason

Lack of a reliable source to confirm he was indeed a flying ace. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't have access to it, but this source appears to be fairly definitive: Shores, Christopher; Franks, Norman; Guest, Russell (1990). Above the Trenches: A Complete Record of the Fighter Aces and Units of the British Empire Air Forces 1915-1920. Grub Street. ISBN  978-0948817199. There are small mentions elsewhere, along with, presumably, documentation of whatever earned him the Military Cross, but I'm not sure there's enough for notability, especially without being able to confirm whether he's listed in Above the Trenches. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Neither Above the Trenches nor its Supplement lists him. Georgejdorner ( talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Delete. That pretty much puts the fork in the hopes of sourced notability here, I think. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 17:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm all alone in this, I suppose, but I don't find any of these arguments for retention convincing. The Flight International mention linked below and Supplement to the London Gazette 30064 are merely mentions of his receipt of the Military Cross. His mention in Supplement to the London Gazette 29852 is an entirely routine notice of an appointment. It's not in question that he was awarded the Military Cross, but the Military Cross is a third-level decoration, far from the expectations of WP:MILPEOPLE. I simply do not see a place in the notability guidelines for "everyone who downed five planes is inherently notable" absent anything else nontrivial about him in reliable sources, hand-waving efforts to declare otherwise at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Articles on air aces notwithstanding. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Indeed, I would have suggested a redirect to List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories in lieu of deletion, but since the only evidence of his ace status is a citation that notes four of his air victories were on unspecified "other occasions", he does not satisfy the inclusion requirements for that list! Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep his Military Cross citation says he downed five aircraft. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. If his MC citation says he was an ace then he was an ace. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Here's a source from 1918. Aces are notable, as are kings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A citation in The London Gazette trumps a non-mention in Above the Trenches. How many times are we going to have to go through this? Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If the consensus has been that downing five aircraft = fighter ace = WP notability (not unreasonable) then there are no grounds for deletion. The London Gazette is a reliable source. -- AJHingston ( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Whatsonstage.com Awards

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

Article about a non-notable website that gives various theatre awards based on votes by the general public. The article consists of several unsourced claims, name dropping and operational details of the website. The current and available sources are insufficient for establishing WP:ORGDEPTH notabilty. The sources are mostly blogs and mere mentions in a couple of newspapers and books. As far as I can tell, there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this website/organization in any detail whatsoever. Also fails WP:NOT#INTERNET. - Mr X 14:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • WhatsOnStage.com is a notable theatre website in the UK and it's awards are revered by industry professionals and the theatre going public alike. The article includes a selection of celebrities that have performed and/or hosted the awards ceremonies, and is no more name dropping than the "Laurence Olivier Award" page - /info/en/?search=Laurence_Olivier_Award. The operational details refered to in the article are about the voting prodecures of the awards and not the website.
Please advise on the unsourced claims you refer to so that I can either reference or omit them.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
If these awards are notable, it should be easy to find a few sources that have written about the awards collectively, as opposed to writing about individual award winners. I will strike the "unsourced claims" comment, since it's not relevant to a deletion discussion anyway. 18:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added a reference from Delfont Mackintosh to the history section and another to the judging section from the metro newspaper, does that suffice? Wikibenh ( talk) 19:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

*Delete - non-notable awards. Simply south.... .. cooking letters for just 7 years 13:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I've added recent award winners with references to national newspapers quoting award winners. These awards are notable and considered 2nd only to the Oliviers, please explain anything else I need to add to prove notability. Wikibenh ( talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The references look promising so I change to Keep. Simply south.... .. eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Wikibenh ( talk) 16:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The awards do get coverage by The Guardian [1] and others. Dream Focus 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and wikify -- We do not allow Awards categories, and instead expect the awards to be listified as an article. The corollary is that we should keep the awards articles, even for not very notable ones. IN this case, it is obvious to me that many of the recipients are notable, as would be obvious if the appropriate links were made. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I was not aware that we don't allow awards categories. Could you please provide a link to that policy? - Mr X 22:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Also, it seems to be contradicted by this Category:Theatre awards. - Mr X 22:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Follow up -- Category:Theatre awards is a category of articles on awards. The normal outcome of a WP:CFD on an award (winners) category - which is what these are - is "listify and delete". It follows that we should keep the related list articles: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep this main article. Sufficient coverage of these awards exists in reliable sources to justify having an article about them on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily think that we need all the subarticles; they might just as well be merged into one or more larger lists, but that question could in the first instance by addressed by normal editorial processes.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep these awards are highly notable. This years awards already have articles by the BBC, The Guardian, The Express and the Belfast Telegraph less than a few hours after being announced. Look at last years and you will find more than enough coverage in third part reelable sources to prove this meets WP:GNG. Not enough research was carried out to prove this did not meet GNG. Blethering Scot 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bayt.com

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

Very highly promotional article with at most very borderline notability . The awards are minor, the many references mere announcements or PR. Recreated at AfC after G11 speedy DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm not sure where the article is promotional; the article is written in a neutral tone and lists just major milestones of Bayt.com's history. Sure, some of the references may be PR, but they are reported on major regional publications with wide regional viewership. The aim is to present Bayt.com as a talked-about, notable organization in the Middle East region. Bayt.com is a significant online job board serving the whole Middle East and has a Global Alexa Rank of 1,498 (as of December 2), so it is quite notable even globally. As a brand, Bayt.com is widely recognizable in the Middle East and is considered one of the leading, successful online companies, surviving even the dot-com bubble of 2000-2001. Disclosure: I wrote this article. -- Superleda ( talk) 09:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article looks great. Whoever made it knows Wikipedia rules and knows that they references they are using are not permitted per WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per DGG. Promotional. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • All right, how do we make this non-promotional? Any help would be much appreciated. Superleda ( talk) 20:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem that it has attracted sufficient coverage to broaden the article beyond its current state, unfortunately. They may come in time. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for Channel One Cup (football). There was no consensus regarding the other subsidiary articles. However some comments indicated support for a merger of the subsidiary articles but I suggest discussing this on the Channel One Cup (football) talk page first and then bringing those articles back to AfD in a dedicated discussion later if needed. As far as this discussion is concerned, there was no consensus for a deletion or merger of the subsidiary articles. ( non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Channel One Cup (football)

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

PROD removed with the reason of "good known tournament, plz start a full discussion." I disagree, and believe the original PROD rationale of "non-notable friendly competition, not significantly covered in reliable sources" remains valid. Giant Snowman 13:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. No reason to delete this articles. Big coverage in Russian/Ukrainian media, not only in sports media, for example see [2] [3] [4] etc. Best clubs of the leagues took part in it. Potentially impact to create the United Russia-Ukraine league in future [5]. Similar notability as for other 2013 friendly tournaments. NickSt ( talk) 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. This tournament had a lot of media coverage in Russia and Ukraine as well as other former Soviet states. I am always baffled when people with no knowledge in certain topics will take it upon themselves to rid Wikipedia of articles that don't matter to them just because they never heard of them. This nomination for deletion is a just another example of WP:Bias, because certain editors only want to present the "Anglophone Wikipedian's version of the world." -- Bogu Slav 00:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please can you evidence that significant coverage? Your unfounded accusations of BIAS show how weak your claims are, you are grasping at straws. Giant Snowman 09:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Again, you illustrate my point. YOU don't know about this topic, therefore it must be not important. But, since you ask, I will spend some of my time showing some examples.
Here is a list of the news articles on ua-football.com from December 2008 (just one month):
  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
  7. [12]
  8. [13]
  9. [14]
  10. [15]
  11. [16]
  12. [17]
  13. [18]
  14. [19]
  15. [20]
  16. [21]
Lets try another major Ukrainian football website, terrikon.com, looking just for the month of December 2008:
  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]
  5. [26]
  6. [27]
  7. [28]
  8. [29]
  9. [30]
  10. [31]
  11. [32]
  12. [33]
  13. [34]
  14. [35]
  15. [36]
  16. [37]
  17. [38]
  18. [39]
I can do the same thing for websites such as sport-express.ru, football.ua, sports.ru, sport.ua, hotsport.ua, comments.ua/sport, ua.championat.com, sportbox.ru, ukrfootball.kiev.ua, dynamomania.com, ukrainianfootball.com as well as many others which will all have a lot of coverage of this tournament. Anything who follows football in Ukraine, Russia, and the former Soviet states would know of this tournament.-- Bogu Slav 20:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Good job! Kills any argument for "deletion" (which weren't even made so far). 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 08:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all, non-notable pre-season friendly tournament. season articles are clear contraventions of WP:NSEASONS. Fenix down ( talk) 16:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, obviously. While it existed it got huge coverage and it's cancellation (mostly due to Abramovich not wanting to invest in it anymore because of other businesses) had a big effect. Organizers of many other tournaments like the United Tournament mentioned this tournament as an inspiration, which shows it has legacy. The fact is, it got much more coverage and weight than the CIS Cup, and in fact "stole the spotlight" from it. The links are in the article, hope whoever nominated the article will now look at them. 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 08:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable as shown by Nickst and by BoguSlav, whose expressed concern about mitigating English Wikipedia's inherent geographic systemic bias is also valid. The annual articles may be excessive in detail, and could possibly be merged into the main article, but that question can presumably be handled through normal editing processes.-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I disagree that the notability here is clear. There is a little meat on the bone though, mostly in the cancellation story, and the legacy. Gigs ( talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep parent article, merge any useful content from season articles into parent and then delete the seasons. There appears to be a decent amount of coverage for the competition, but individual pages for a few unsourced football results for each of three years and a couple of sentences for the cancelled year is excessive, and wouldn't swamp the parent. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The tournament was a big deal in the participating countries, and even after its cancellation many similar tournaments, like Match World Cup and the new United Tournament explicitly took the format of the channel one cup and the organisers of those tournaments stated that the success of channel one cup showed them that such a tournament will work. I think this article has right to be on Wikipedia just like the article about the Anglo-Italian cup has a right to be, and definitely has more right then articles about the Manga Cup and Copa del Sol. Sunderland against Di Canio ( talk) 14:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Fair point! That tournament is definitely more important in terms of legacy in terms of impact then the Anglo-Italian Cup, the [Anglo-Scottish Cup]], the Audi Cup and the Premier League Asia Trophy, and DEFINITELY more important than the Telekom Cup, Trofeo Santiago Bernabéu and the Joan Gamper Trophy. I smell an anti-East European bias in those nominations to be honest. 176.26.247.147 ( talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep parent article, merge and delete the season-articles per Struway. While this tournament probably is a notable subject, there is no need to have four WP:SPINOFF-articles that covers the same subject. Mentoz86 ( talk) 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Equity Awards. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Equity Award for Most Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series

Equity Award for Most Outstanding Performance by an Ensemble in a Comedy Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

whilst the Equity Awards may be notable, individual subcategories like this may not be. the only hits I could find are WP mirrors. the articles cites its own website. no third party coverage of this actual subcategory.

for the same reasons I am nominating:

These awards have only existed for 2 years, nothing like the Logies.

LibStar ( talk) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - WP:SPINOUT articles for the lead article Equity Awards. Awards with multiple categories usually generate these sorts of lists as sub-articles of the lead article. Merging these large charts of winners and nominees will make the lead article extremely ungainly and, since the presenting organization shows no indication that the awards will be discontinued so the ungainliness of a merged lead article will only get worse over time. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 03:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I have now also nominated Equity Awards, if the parent is of questionable notability, its subcategories are on shaky ground. LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge,Looking at the articles, they are not at all too large to merge into a common article for the awards. 'DGG (at NYPL)' ( talk) 20:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per DGG. Since the main article has now been kept, the content of these sub-articles should not be deleted. For now, as DGG says, there's room for this content in the main article. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a technical !vote. There is no objection to a merge - the question there is purely an editing one and they might later be demerged in any event. This is not case where the topic is notable only in context; the award stands in its own right and is not dependent on who else was given an award on the night. -- AJHingston ( talk) 15:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Josh Rafferty

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

Unreferenced article about an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa ( talk) 04:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Heroes (TV series). Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

9th Wonders!

9th Wonders! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources attest to the real-world notability of the fictional construct. The few sources that do mention it do so in passing and only in terms of the fiction from which it's drawn. The show in which the comic appears is unquestionably notable but that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by every aspect of it. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch ( talk) 02:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dhavalakeerthi

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

Not notable. Living person with no significance. Even the site has little. prat ( talk) 12:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Article about a non-notable living person. There isn't enough coverage about him in reliable sources for a complete article. Rahul ( talk) 16:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep- I've added in the stub templates. A million hits on Google are not required to establish notability. The article is reliably sourced. Every article in the living persons category [40] is about people notable in their respective fields. This article has enough sources for a stub. However, a request for more sources can be made, deleting the article doesn't look particularly constructive.-- Aayush18 ( talk) 08:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think "jainworld.com", "jainheritagecenters.com", "Akalanka-educational-trust.com" and "Herenow4u.net" qualifies as reliable sources. -- Rahul ( talk) 17:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against recreating per the comments below. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lemon Bay / Myakka Trail Scenic Highway

Lemon Bay / Myakka Trail Scenic Highway (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copyied and pasted from this page. Content from Florida state government is PD, but it is not entirely clear that the government (Florida DOT in this case) actually published the site. Also, PD is not a license to copy without attribution. All diffs of the page contain the offending text, so deletion and recreation without the plagiarism is the best recourse. – Fredddie ™ 03:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and recreate a non-plagiarized version of this article. The content is notable enough for its own article. Dough 48 72 01:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom -- Admr Boltz 19:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Agree, delete and recreate—the topic should have an article, but this isn't the way to go about it. CSD G12 would apply if it weren't for the ambiguity over FDOT's role in creating the website that was copied here. (I agree that even if we didn't have that ambiguity, the content needs attribituion, but that would be easily resolved.) Imzadi 1979  → 02:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Media curation

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

Doesn't seem like an especially notable topic. It's had maintenance tags related to notability and sourcing on it since 2010 without any major improvement. Reads more like an essay than an article. clpo13( talk) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete and possibly wp:NUKEANDPAVE at that. A badly written orphan article after three and a half years, incredibly badly referenced, and seemingly non notable. Neonchameleon ( talk) 11:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

WISE 1405+5534

WISE 1405+5534 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if this system meets WP:NASTRO. However, this one seems to have a small amount more coverage than others (although likely not enough to be significant), so I think this needs some AfD discussion. StringTheory11 ( t •  c) 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - appears to fail wp:NASTRO on all accounts. Neonchameleon ( talk) 11:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Given that it was estimated to be only 12.4 ly from Earth and is included in List of nearest stars at 16 ly. I still doubt whether Wikipedia benefits from deleting as many brown dwarf articles as possible, especially the ones that are less than 30 ly from Earth. -- Kheider ( talk) 19:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - It appears that more recent measurements put this one's distance at over 25 light years (meaning that it should be deleted from the List of nearest stars, as WISE 0410+1502 was deleted from the list earlier, for the same reason). As such, if it doesn't qualify for the List of nearest stars, it seems that it's a lot closer to failing WP:NASTRO... -- IJBall ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
But even then WISE 1405+5534 still counts as once having been considered one of the Sun's nearest neighbors. I am not comfortable deleting such articles. Besides, WP:NASTRO would suggest to MERGE not delete such an article . -- Kheider ( talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
It was considered closer, but not anymore. These are difficulties with measurement. Hekerui ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep. At the very least does it have a history of measurements. -- JorisvS ( talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete fails criteria of WP:NASTCRIT and does not belong on List of nearest stars either according to new data. Sufficient mention in List of brown dwarfs. Hekerui ( talk) 09:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Seriously, the one line in the table? There is more information here than that. -- JorisvS ( talk) 09:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
I hope I didn't come across as mean. We have many objects for whom we could give the technical detail we give to this brown dwarf so we must excercise consideration on which to include unless we become a directory. Aside from the criteria, this one does not fall under closest stars anymore so I doubt it merits an article anymore. Hekerui ( talk) 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
You do come across as extreme when it comes to enforcing WP:NASTRO, which by the way says to merge, not delete. When you and the Wiki-reich are done the only thing left in Category:Brown dwarfs will be the hypothetical Nemesis. I am somewhat surprised the whole category has not been nominated for deletion given that they are all below naked-eye visibility. -- Kheider ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Far from being a mere database entry. Multiple academic sources allow to build a meaningful encyclopedic article with lots of reliable, neutral, encyclopedic information: it thus meets the the reasons behind notability requirements. Another case showing that WP:NASTRO creates more problem than it solves, and it should be amended.-- cyclopia speak! 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above keeps. Fotaun ( talk) 19:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Sydney Grammar Old Boys Rugby Club

Sydney Grammar Old Boys Rugby Club (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a very amateur club that is a sixth division side (lowest level). created by a single purpose editor who is obviously a club member. LibStar ( talk) 01:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - obvious single purpose editor as the only person who's bothered with the page. Neonchameleon ( talk) 12:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete – Fails WP:GNG - can't find multiple independent reliable sources. No notability due to historical reasons, influence etc. Clear delete. -- Shudde talk 08:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No decent independent sources to establish any claim to notability, plays at a very low level and no historical impact on the game. -- Bcp67 ( talk) 09:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edmund Leighton#List of works. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

To the Unknown Land

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

No indication of significance or notability. I cannot find sufficient information on the subject on the internet. Tco03displays ( talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Given that this is a painting by Edmund Leighton, not by his more famous namesake Frederic Leighton, there would need to be clear evidence to make an individual work by him notable in its own right. Clearly it made, and has made, some impact but I have been unable to find much other than some people like it. If it had been used in a major advertising campaign, discussed at length by a well known critic, etc then things might be different. -- AJHingston ( talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak redirect to Edmund_Leighton#List_of_works. There were a few hits out there, but not much. There's just enough here to where someone could probably argue a keep based upon that, but there's really not much in the article. If someone can find more to flesh out the article I'd support a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_December_4&oldid=1142632610"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE