The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GB  fan 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Japan Airlines Flight 2

Japan Airlines Flight 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Complete lack of notability, or compliance with guidelines in WP:Aircrash Petebutt ( talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think the fact that the accident was picked up by Peter Greenberg and that it was covered in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2011 ( [1]) shows that there is some kind of lasting significance as required to pass WP:EVENT. It's also to be mentioned in the book The Fifth Discipline (but as this book not about aviation and I don't know the extent of its coverage of the accident, I wouldn't use it to make a point). Last but not least, there is this article at airliners.net. (is this considered a reliable source at all?) It indicates that the aircraft was repaired, even though being damaged by salty water, which could be some kind of a unique event, putting more weigh on the significance of the accident. More/better sources should be found, though.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Merge into San_Francisco_International_Airport#Accidents_and_incidents, which appears to be the best destination for this, and likely also List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-8 and List of Japan Airlines incidents and accidents, based on my reading of WP:PLANECRASH. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this accident does have lasting significance - the "Asoh defence" came directly from it. Apart from that, a large commercial airliner was significantly damaged at the least. Mjroots ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect per Sven Manguard. No need for a merge, there is already a paragraph at the target article. Crash with no lasting significance, no injuries or deaths. The only reason the article has been mentioned in the news recently is because of its similarity to the much more serious Aviana short-landing earlier this year. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The fact that it was a plane crash with lots of people on board makes it significant. It also happened under similar circumstances as the Asiana crash is interesting, too. Dead Goldfish ( talk) 23:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Not every plane crash (this was not even a crash, more of a water landing) with lots of people on board is significant. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:36, 11 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) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Clearly notable; by definition, meets the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It was not a "routine" accident or news event. It was not heroic like US Airways Flight 1549 where everyone also survived, but was an equally spectacular civil aviation accident involving a commercial airliner carrying over a hundred passengers and crew. It perhaps did not have "lasting" effects (which might also be true of Flight 1549), but any passenger airline accidental landing/crash not on an airport runway always receives extensive attention and becomes notable; this one is eminently suitable for standalone inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, which seems to be a guideline for articles about airports, aircraft and airlines (not aviation accidents by themselves), is not relevant here. This is not an article about an airport, airline or aircraft; it is an article about a notable aviation accident. DonFB ( talk) 02:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - meets WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE with flying colours. The fact that they rescued the aircraft from the water and actually returned it to service is pretty rare, and possibly almost unique in commercial passenger aviation. WP:AIRCRASH is a guideline, and cannot overrule GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:43, 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

IrAero Flight 103

IrAero Flight 103 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of notability, just another overrun with no fatalities and no long term changes in procedures law, regulations etc. Petebutt ( talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Indeed, there is no evidence for the "lasting significance" that is required to pass WP:EVENT.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable accident. Fails WP:Event. ...William 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Scary to say, but plane crashes without fatalities are quite common. While the aircraft may have been wrecked, there was no loss of human life and no changes to procedures. Bearian ( talk) 22:35, 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 speedy delete. JodyB _talk 05:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC) I should have added the rationale as A7. This deleted the redirect, the article is also deleted as A7. JodyB _talk 17:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bilgehan demir

Bilgehan demir (  | 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 biographical article was begun yesterday and almost entirely written by the subject of the article, Bilgehan Demir (as can be seen in the username of the article creator and most frequent editor, Mbdemir76 ( talk)). Furthermore, its notability is questionable; Google searches result in few results. Ithinkicahn ( talk) 23:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - appears to fail GNG, and appears overly promotional. Giant Snowman 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note - the page appears to have recently been moved to Bilgehan Demir (with the second word capitalized this time). Ithinkicahn ( talk) 06:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note 2 - the subject of the article, the one who created it, just brazenly attempted to delete the deletion tag (as well as other template messages) from his own page. Ithinkicahn ( talk) 01:51, 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 speedily deleted (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 13:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Haneen

Haneen (  | 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 personal name. No sources or evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 22:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:25, 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 due to WP:BLP issues in history and concerns expresssed below.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG ( talk • contribs)

Kent University Conservative Association

Kent University Conservative Association (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Organization seems to fail WP:ORG and/or WP:GNG. It simply seems to exist. Despite existing since 1965, there are no book hits whatsoever for it, as well as no news hits either. In short, there is little to no coverage in independent sources about it, and even if its members are notable for some reason, notability is not inherited. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note I didn't notice this has gone through two AFDs before, one in 2005 (delete), one in 2007 (redirect). Realistically, if independent coverage was generated in the intervening six years it wouldn't be difficult to find, but that's not the case as far as I can see. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete and salt Pretty much boilerplate text for a student political organization. Should be salted due to the persistence in recreating. Mangoe ( talk)
• Delete but don't salt. The last AfD was in 2007, and the history shows it wasn't until this year that the page was recreated following the redirect. I wouldn't call a two and then six year gaps between article creation persistence in recreating. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Kent Union#Student life, as suggested before. Bearian ( talk) 22:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that this gives it WP:UNDUE prominence as the only such organization that would be mentioned. There are likely several hundred of these, and even among the political groups the Kent Labour Students seems essentially of the same age (they do not give a specific founding date). Of all the groups at UMCP, for example, I would only give space to the Monarchist Party, given that they actually made the news through their historic victory in the SGA elections there. It's not particularly noteworthy that campus groups, anywhere, have some group with a conservative political bent. Mangoe ( talk) 01:54, 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

NO PUNK Live DVD

NO PUNK Live DVD (  | 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 DVD. No evidence of awards, charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article. -- DAJF ( talk) 01:17, 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

IrAero Flight 103

IrAero Flight 103 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of notability, just another overrun with no fatalities and no long term changes in procedures law, regulations etc. Petebutt ( talk) 20:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Indeed, there is no evidence for the "lasting significance" that is required to pass WP:EVENT.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 17:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable accident. Fails WP:Event. ...William 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Scary to say, but plane crashes without fatalities are quite common. While the aircraft may have been wrecked, there was no loss of human life and no changes to procedures. Bearian ( talk) 22:35, 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

COMETA

COMETA (  | 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 can find no reliable sources discussing such an organization. It may have existed, but it does not seem to meet notability requirements. LuckyLouie ( talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

delete - My concern is that the article lists a number of possibly living persons as being the author of a UFO tract without valid sources. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - With no prejudice against creation of a redirect to Ufology#COMETA or another appropriate location. I see this as similar to Disclosure Project. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disclosure Project. jps ( talk) 02:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV ( talk · contribs). Barney the barney barney ( talk) 16:02, 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. The others can be listed later on. Please wait a few days. Bearian ( talk) 22:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ricky Martinez

Ricky Martinez (  | 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 Pornstar. Fails WP:PORNBIO as he has not won "a well-known and significant industry award" & WP:GNG as has not "received any significant coverage in reliable sources". Finnegas ( talk) 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reasons:

Kid Bengala ‎ (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Antoine Mallet (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nozomi Aso (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

‎Henry Saari (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Withdrawn by nominator. I am taking onboard Gene93k's & Erpert's concerns about the articles needing to be evaluated individually. In addition, I would like to clarify I did carry out the 'prescribed WP:BEFORE procedure'. Moreover, I would like to highlight I have no Knowledge of Finnish to understand any 'articles from Finnish newspapers and magazines' which may exist concerning ‎Henry Saari. Finnegas ( talk) 11:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• So you makes WP:BEFORE about a Finnish person ignoring sources in Finnish, and about a Japanese person ignoring sources in Japanese... interesting! It's pretty obvious that in cases of non-English speaking people you should search sources in their native language, otherwise you cannot say that a person fails GNG. If you haven't enough language skills and you're also unable to use easy translation tools such as Google Translate, you should simply stop to nominate people whose sources reasonably would be in a language different from English, period. As far as I can remember you were already warned about that, but you keep to nominate for deletion non-English people and then to justify your lack of WP:BEFORE with the same lame excuses. Sorry, but if you keep on waste the community time, I will not esitate to report you for disruption. Cavarrone 15:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Let me get this straight you intend to report me for not conducting a rigorous enough WP: BEFORE? Finnegas ( talk) 15:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• First, your WP:BEFORE is blatantly non-existent. Second, sure, if you keep on abusing and misapplicating the deletion policy and you keep on wastling the community time I will report you to AN and I will ask for having you banned from AfD processes (it would not be the first case), especially as you were warned multiple times about your deficiencies, and you apparently and knowingly refuse to fix them. Cavarrone 15:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Finnegas ( talk) 18:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. The only thing these bundled nominations have in common is that they are porn stars. I suggest listing them separately so that they can be evaluated individually. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment has the nominator made the prescribed WP:BEFORE procedure before nominating all these articles for deletion? I checked Henry Saari and a few minutes were sufficient to found a dozen articles from Finnish newspapers and magazines about him (and one was already included in the article). Not yet checked Nozomi Aso (ie 麻生希) but there is an Expand Japanese template on the top of the page and the Japanese article lists, among the references, at least three reliable sources (the weekly magazine Friday, the monthly magazine Cyzo, the news website Zakzak). Cavarrone 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close. I'm neutral about notability, but as Gene93k hinted at, there is no valid reason for these articles to be bundled in the same AfD. Aside from them all being porn stars, they have nothing in common; in addition, the articles were all created by different editors. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Yes, speedy close and apply WP:BEFORE before any further nomination per what said above. Cavarrone 07:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per sourced award won. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 02:07, 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 delete. postdlf ( talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry

UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry (  | 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 believe this WP:VANITY-press published book fails WP:BK rather plainly. Not notable outside of WP:FRINGE circles. jps ( talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable. I don't see any reviews, and the article has none listed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is borderline promotional in how it's written, but it looks like it would just narrowly squeak by a speedy via that outlet. In any case, I can't find anything to show that this book is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I would say redirect to the author, but there are many of them- making it impossible to decide which one is the more feasible redirect target. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable. This article looks more like a table of contents than an encyclopedic entry. Chris Troutman ( talk) 07:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Not notable and written as an originally researched promo. LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not notable per reasons outlined above. Finnegas ( talk) 11:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it's a cut'n'paste from some amateur X-Files. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment The article about this book's author Richard Thieme may be in violation of the policies concerning biographies of living persons: WP:BLP, specifically notability. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it is snowing outside and online. Bearian ( talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep This book was reviewed in a collegiate library review journal,
  For the publication by the Association of College and Research Libraries, see Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries.
  Feb 2013, Vol 50, No.06. The book received a positive recommendation and amongst the comments was, "A Useful Resource of the study of a controversial topic." This is a history book and not an X-File book. It is not unusual for history books within Wikipedia to have brief descriptions of their chapters listed. This was done in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, The Twelve Caesars, and The Communist Manifesto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.59.173 ( talk) 00:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

70.113.59.173, according to your edit log, you created this article in a sandbox with the username "Rpowell2u". If you are the co-author of the book with the same first initial and last name, I suggest you might read our guidelines regarding Conflict of Interest, thanks. LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:09, 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 speedy delete. A7 Secret ^account 14:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Eklipse Sports Radio

Eklipse Sports Radio (  | 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 radio station which does not exist. Was "due to launch in October 2013" and has not begun to broadcast. The page was created by User:Spencerpryor, listed in the article as the station's Managing Director. Lunchtime O'Wiki ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:15, 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. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Death Cure

The Death Cure (  | 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 book. Article consists almost entirely of an overextended summary, which may be plagiarized from elsewhere on the Internet, though I haven't been able to pin down which is the original source. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: It turns out the summary was plagiarized from another website, so I've pulled it down. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Could nom please state the grounds for nomination? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Added above. Not sure how I forgot that. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I dug a little about the copyvio concerns. If you're referring to this wikia entry then it looks like they copied our synopsis rather than the other way around. ( Synopsis was added to the wikia on July 10, 2012, but existed on WP as of July 3, 2012.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I found two reviews: [2] and [3]. There might be more, but I'm not sure. The Google News archive doesn't seem to be working. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I had some serious issues finding sources due to a similar issue with Google News. There may be more out there that is lost in the swamp of non-usable reviews and link that come up in a general Google search, but I managed to find just enough for this to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep': I hadn't found those sources, but if they're there, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:54, 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Community Party

Community Party (  | 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 political party; I suspect a one-woman project by User:Deborahnoblet. Its website has been dead for years and it has no mentions on the internet besides Wikipedia clones. The only version of its website available at archive.org states that "The Community Party intends to stand in elections across Europe" (signed, Debbie) but I don't think that ever happened. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete - no reliable sources or evidence of notability Depthdiver ( talk) 19:54, 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 redirect to History of science and technology in Mexico. Any salvageable content can be retrieved from the article history and merged into the redirect target. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 12:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Technology in Mexico

Technology in Mexico (  | 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 seams to overlap a lot with History of science and technology in Mexico. I am not sure whether we need a new article about technology in Mexico. This article is poorly sourced, and full of copyrighted images. Vanjagenije ( talk) 15:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge one into the other and redirect. Bearian ( talk) 22:41, 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Agnes Mae Pharo

Agnes Mae Pharo (  | 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 to reliable independent sources to establish Notability. Vanjagenije ( talk) 14:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Not notable. Samwalton9 ( talk) 15:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Goes by the name "Agnes M. Pharo". Known for a short quote about Christmas often re-quoted e.g. [4] Can't find much else. -- GreenC 20:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting mention here in relation to lack of a Wikipedia entry. -- GreenC 20:22, 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 keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Come As You Are (sex shop)

Come As You Are (sex shop) (  | 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 retail operation lacking non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix ( talk) 14:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 20:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Yes, while Google has gutted its news archive search even the web search reveals significant coverage in The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, and more... Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:38, 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 speedy deleted by Daniel Case per WP:CSD#A7. ( non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 14:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

TimroMero Production

TimroMero Production (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Autobiography Herald talk with me 13:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:32, 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Geoff Nutkins

Geoff Nutkins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be an aviation illustrator but despite some of the claims in the article I can't find anything at all about him anywhere online (discounting his website and his museum website) let alone significant coverage in reliable sources. The claim of raising money for charity is very worthy, but he produced over 6000 of these prints, so £100,000 doesn't indicate high value art. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk ( talk) 01:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete This source says "one of Britain’s top aviation artists Geoff Nutkins".. but then goes on to promote him in a way that reads like a press release. Not sure what guardian-series.co.uk is and found very little else (the NewsShopper sources are not independent). -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 09:25, 30 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, Ged UK  13:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete I do believe he's very talented, but, I'm struggling to find multiple reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:01, 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Anthony Holland (composer)

Anthony Holland (composer) (  | 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 makes claims for the subject of the article which would pass notability criteria. However, I feel that these claims are not backed by reliable sources. I am nominating this article for deletion based on lack of reliable sources. Persons contesting this would be making a strong argument by pointing to 2-3 sources each of which document some claim to notability.

See the talk page of this article for discussions about sources. It seems that several people including me have questioned them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Lacks in-depth coverage; insufficiently notable. Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 13:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Definitely does not meet the notability requirements for a WP:BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley ( talk • contribs)
• Delete. Fails notability per WP:ACADEMIC (for the fringe theory section, which was apparently restored) and I don't see it satisfying WP:notability (music) – Seppi333 ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Well, this has been a somewhat frustrating experience for me, to say the least! Holland is of marginal notability. There are two independent, reliable sources about his work as an amateur scientist on some fringe medical theories, one of which (the Ira Glass piece) should certainly qualify as in-depth coverage. The article currently has very little in the way of sourcing on anything else about him; there's a page at his university whose authorship is unclear (some parts are written in Holland's voice, others are written in the third person) that provides biographical information. It would be nice if there were more coverage of him as a musician/composer/academic in truly independent sources; Google is able to find a couple things, perhaps the best of which is this. If the Skidmore page and/or the article linked in the previous sentence are third party RSs, then I think there is clearly enough information to write a decent two-paragraph plus lead article about Holland (essentially, the article we already have); if not, then there's only his scientific stuff. I personally think that he's an interesting-sounding guy, that there's the material there for a short biography, and that he should be considered (just barely) notable. -- JBL ( talk) 22:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

JBL, I regret that you find any part of this frustrating and I wish that upon seeing this article you would have known that a deletion discussion was a likely outcome. The community here strives to review content in a consistent way, and it is a failure of the infrastructure here when people expect one outcome and get another. I hope that your frustration is lessened by seeing what a huge amount of discussion that multiple volunteers have spent talking about a person that perhaps none of us recognize, and I hope you recognize that this could only be so quickly and orderly managed on Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is a defined term; consider reading WP:PROF, WP:CREATIVE,and WP:GNG as user:DGG suggested to on the talk page of the article. If the subject of this article met any of these, then the article would be kept. His university-published biography is considered self-published regardless of its authorship. His university has a financial relationship with him and is compelled by their own interests to portray him in a way that makes them both look good, so this is not a reliable source. The Saratogian newspaper article is a copy/paste sort of journalism and not a media description of a person's life work which establishes notability; it is a promotion for an event and whoever wrote the article seems not to have interviewed Holland or investigated more deeply than finding his basic bio somehow. The Ira Glass piece could be good if it makes any claim which would establish this person's notability, but this source was not used as a citation for a statement of that sort. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comment. It was clear to me that Holland was a candidate for deletion; on the other hand, it is often the case that articles on non-notable subjects survive a long time, especially if they are decently written. I am not nearly so invested in this article that I am going to go through thousands of words of notability guidelines to find spots where my overview above can be propped up by a direct policy-citation. I just think it's too bad that this (basically decent if necessarily stubby) article is going to be deleted for no really crucial reason. -- JBL ( talk) 14:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The only claim to fame is having a piece on him in This American Life, but ordinarily that one thing would be good enough for me. In this case, though, that one thing is medical research that clearly is non-mainstream, sourced only by sources that clearly do not meet WP:MEDRS, with no mainstream assessment of whether what he's doing makes any sense. As such, reporting on this work only from advocacy pieces as we do now clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and risks endangering real lives by leading cancer victims away from more proven attacks on the disease. But removing this material from the article leaves nothing of note. And the fierce defense of this fringe material by its proponents (restoring it after DGG's strong warning not to, and repeated removing the fringe tag from it) does not bode well for our ability to keep the article neutral. I think the only solution is to not have an article until such time as he's achieved enough fame that the mainstream is forced to take note of him and provide sources we can use (if it ever does). — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:41, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. postdlf ( talk) 23:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Wynne LeGrow

Wynne LeGrow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Party nominees for office are not inherently notable. While there is quite a bit of text on this article, much of it is sourced to his own campaign website. Little coverage independent of the subject exists. Further, few articles link here, confirming lack of importance. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. A redirect is an appropriate outcome for candidates for a national office. Any relevant information about the candidate can be added to the page about the election. -- Enos733 ( talk) 22:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia, 2010#District 4. Bearcat ( talk) 21:46, 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) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Damaged beyond repair

Damaged beyond repair (  | 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 searching I am not finding widespread support for this term defined as is. I don't nec. think it falls within a csd category but I do think it is not notable phrase to include here and possibly has a dose of WP:OR to go with it. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 08:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a neologism. I am finding some mentions of the term in places such as this book, but it's brief and would be considered trivial. I'd suggest merging it somewhere as a mention, but I don't know an exactly good target for this to be added to. I don't have a problem with someone userfying the data, but I think it'll probably be a few years before this term really gets enough coverage to justify its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Tokyogirl79. I've heard of the term "damaged beyond repair" to refer to structures damaged after calamities, but the term as used in the article appears to not be widespread. An alternative could be to redirect it to a disaster-related article (the term is frequently used in that context), but I'm not sure what the appropriate target would be. Narutolovehinata5 ^{t c csd new} 11:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Certainly the term is used loosely (and perhaps more formally) in relation to damage to physical objects and no doubt the usage here derives from that. If kept, there should be a hatnote directing users to Total loss. I do see quite a bit of evidence in Google that this alternative meaning has been around in the popular conciousness, or at least the blogosphere, since 2007 and is discussed for example here - it certainly cannot be dismissed as OR and we usually restrict neologism objections here to things of more recent coinage. What I cannot judge is how far it has penetrated into the (sub-)culture in order to be notable. But I do not think this is clear-cut, and I am inclined to give the article the benefit of the doubt. -- AJHingston ( talk) 11:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think that the OR concerns stem from the tone of some of the claims made in a previous version of the article, which claimed things such as all DBR men fail to make any contributions to society in a meaningful, positive way or that it all was the "direct result of black male socialization which focuses on aggression and hypersexuality". It wasn't backed up with a RS and was such a blanket statement that it came across as a little OR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Thank you TG. That is exactly why I thought it was a possible issue. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

So long as the view is attributable to the coinage then of course it has a proper place in the article, as does criticism of it. The difficulty might be that the term could be held applicable to all men/women/people within a (sub-)culture, a person's particular personal history, or men in general for that matter, and the article should make clear whether it has retained its original context. The fact that it is controversial or not borne out by the experience of some editors (which is OR) is not so much the issue as whether we can reliably reference it by pointing to usage. Alternatively, the controversy itself might be sufficiently notable for the article to be on that. -- AJHingston ( talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete by "not a dictionary." The concept of people "damaged beyond repair" might possibly be a good topic for an article. I don't have any ideas for a title. This article says this particular expression is used in the black community. Obviously (again a part of "not a dictionary") we don't have two articles, one on what something is called by black people and another on what it's called by white people. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 15:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NEO. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - let's not define every single metaphor in the English language. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete — The OR issues mentioned above are not a reason to delete, of course; I'm not sure why they were brought up. However, I don't think this neologism quite meets the bar set by WP:NEO. "Damaged beyond repair" is a common phrase used to describe objects such as equipment, so for example a search for the phrase "damaged beyond repair" yields a lot of results. However, very few of them are for the usage that is the subject of this article. There are some; this is a thing that has some usage, to be sure. But I can't seem to find much in the way of discussion in reliable sources about the term, other than the trivial mention in the Karazin book that Tokyogirl linked to: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." ( WP:NEO). ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

In my view it's a simple statement, if it's a phrase not in common usage, and has no significant or verifiable references it must by definition be WP:OR. Under the subheading WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states rather explicitly "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." therefore it is indeed a valid reason to mention for deletion. Now whether or not my assessment of original research is correct can be up for debate but I thought it fell under verifiability clause. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

But this is a phrase used in this context in 2007 if not before, commented on at the time, (we have references for both) and which it is said remains in use. The original use was not in WP. Even the controversy over it could be notable if we had enough sources. That is very different, surely, from the case where somebody writes a WP article claiming (say) that all men are worthless based on her experience, or an article based on a phrase that someone else used last week for the first time in a blog. Once somebody has coined a phrase and given it a meaning it could not be original research to attribute that meaning to it if the reference exists; the issue here must be whether it has passed the notability bar. -- AJHingston ( talk) 02:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand your point in the fact that it has some support showing it is a phrase used in sparing situations, that is one of the reasons I added whether my assessment was correct or nowt was open to debate. My main reason for the post was replying to the comment that OR is not a reason for deletion when it is. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 02:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Oh pardon; I did not mean to imply that OR is not a reason to delete in general; I've argued for deleting made-up neologisms on a number of occasions. My point was simply that it is not a reason to delete in this case, so I was confused as to why it was being discussed here. There was possibly OR in the article—much of it I think removed here—that kind of OR can be fixed without deletion. The term itself is not OR; it is in use and discussed in RS. I agree it isn't enough to pass the bar set by WP:NEO, but it is certainly not OR. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 07:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok, i understand where my statement may have been off base too. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 13:58, 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 keep. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

John Trenwith

John Trenwith (  | 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. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep an obituary (so no BLP violation) in the Sunday Star Times says he's nationally notable in New Zealand, and is sufficient coverage. Quite clearly the author's motives were to cover Old Boys of this particular school, I don't see any problem with this motivation as long as the author sticks to policy. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 11:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep sometimes even spammer get it right. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:13, 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Desmond Scott

Desmond Scott (  | 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. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 6. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete It's a common name so not easy to do a comprehensive search for sources, but I can't find references, and the article doesn't provide information of notability (the article author is normally very good at finding references). Tru Test, of which he was MD for 2 or 3 years, may be more notable since it's apparently won a NZ business award [5] and has some press. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 15:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Only possibility would be New Zealand's Who's Who of 12 years ago. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:30, 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. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Accelerated Technology Laboratories, Inc

Accelerated Technology Laboratories, Inc (  | 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 company. No indications of any significant coverage to be found anywhere. Coverage that is found consists largely of the company's own press releases. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am trying my best to write a fair, wiki page and instead of continuing to attack my work for trying to document the small companies in my area could you please help me point me in the right direction to address the issues. I have spend a lot of time trying to research this business and do not know what I am doing wrong? You mention "significant coverage" what information do I need to provide? I had a friend look it over and found an article from NVIDA that mention this business and I have tried to make this wiki page fair and neutral as possible. Please help me. MajesticWriter ( talk) 19:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia - I'm sorry you're finding it a bit rough. What the article needs is a few (say, three) reliable sources that prove beyond doubt that the company is notable, that is to say, that it is obviously newsworthy. An article in, say, the New York Times that materially discusses the company would be perfect. A press release from the company itself doesn't help, because of course every company believes itself to be worth talking about. Hope this helps a little. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Chriswick and thank you for the welcome and advice, so basically, I need to surf the web and find articles that talk about the company but are not r=from the business itself? Right? Was the one from NVIDIA more suitable? I do believe I did see one from the New York times. A big thank you, it has been rough, I was up all last night. Plus this coding here is confusing but I am trying to catch on. MajesticWriter ( talk) 19:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The "mention" of ATL in the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage. It is a brief mention in passing of one company that happens to be using NVIDIA's technology in an interesting manner. The main topic of the article is NVIDIA's technology itself, not ATL's use of it. WikiDan61 ^ChatMe! _ReadMe!! 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Could you please just delete the page I give up, thank you. p.s. the "brief" mention was about 1/3 of the story..... MajesticWriter ( talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete WikiDan61 is correct, the NVIDIA article is not significant coverage because it only seeks an opinion from this organization and is not about this organization. The other sources are derived from the organization's self publications. This organization does not meet notability criteria. I appreciate your effort MajesticWriter - Wikipedia will be here if you choose to return another time. You can get guidance before you begin by talking to people at the WP:TEAHOUSE. In lots of other ways real people will volunteer to help you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Thank you Blue Rasberry, I appreciate your response and appriciate you taking the time to explain it, instead, of just writing a quick response and leaving me wondering "what I did wrong." After looking over the web I could not find enough information either and also agree it does need to be deleted. You do have to excuess me I am a new user who just started using Wikipedia for the first time and had to ask a friend of mine to give me adivce. WikiDan I do appreciate your knowledge of Wikipeida too and ask to take the time to explain things further and in more detail to the new users, I see where you are coming from because of other users who will ruin the experiance for all if not carefully watched, but please make sure it don't scare off the ones who want to contribute and make them feel unwanted within the first day. I have learned a lot from my adventure and look forward to my next attemp at a wiki page, but will first take your advice and slow down. :) now for the four taps MajesticWriter ( talk) 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:15, 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, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Hello, I honestly believe this wiki page should stay alive, this is a company from North Carolina that has made some exceptional achievements and while they may not have the most "significant coverage" this should not mean they are not Wikipedia material. I thank you for your time. ℳajesticѠriter ^t@lk 21:42, 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment We need more, not fewer editors. Unfortunately I think too many do WP:LAWYERING instead of helping new editors. All too many times I have been read the rules while getting absolutely zero help even though I did everything except getting down on my hands and knees begging for help. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 07:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The coverage cited in the article does not establish notability because it is not by reliable independent published sources, or mentions the company only in passing.  Sandstein  10:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. In the absence of any improvement over the last few weeks, and with no sign of substantial independent sources, the subject does not reach the threshold of notability. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. A Google search for ("accelerated technology laboratories") turned up lots of directory-type listings and a few passing mentions in articles on other subjects, but nothing that looked like in-depth coverage: the closest thing that I could find was the NVIDIA piece, discussed above. A Google News search for the same terms turned up no hits at all. There doesn't appear to be enough coverage by independent sources to confer notability here. Ammodramus ( talk) 15:56, 15 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) 23:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Arthur R. Thompson

Arthur R. Thompson (  | 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 a "reason" of "probably notable ; needs further sources" with no effort to identify sources. article has existed since 2007 with no independent sources. WP:BLPPROD doesn't apply since the article is so old. Nathan Johnson ( talk) 19:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

See this diff. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 19:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not sure. Here is one source
  • Terry, Don (2013). "Bringing Back Birch". splcenter.org. Retrieved 21 November 2013.

If other sources are found then maybe this person is notable. He is the head of an organization which used to be influential. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep - In addition to the source presented by Blue Rasberry, I also found this [6] and [7]. An argument could be made that the article meets criteria 2 of WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• If you want to argue that he meets WP:ANYBIO then you should do so, instead of a chickenshit and vaguewaving at some guideline that doesn't apply. If someone wants to write an article about this guy, then do it. But it's been a potential BLP target (see link above) since 2007. If there were any admins with balls left, they'd delete this POS asap. But there aren't. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

If you let it compost, it makes an excellent fertilizer for your vegetable garden. Meanwhile, feel free to rage this article into the cornfield. Here's my vaguewave scarecrow, straight from the '80s. - Mr X 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I don't see the significant independent coverage about him. The book linked above is probably the best coverage out there. The other two links are not significant coverage. My own searches only turn up more passing mentions. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:54, 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) 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep. Borderline situation, but this source offers more than a passing mention. Otherwise, a redirect to John Birch Society would be something to consider in lieu of deletion. Super Mario Man 16:08, 5 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep There's enough information from pro, anti, and neutral sources to construct an article explaining Thompson's background and beliefs (note when searching that he's often called Art Thompson). I've expanded the article. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:06, 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 nomination withdrawn. Bearcat ( talk) 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Harcourt Clare

Harcourt Clare (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see much more than brief mentions here and there [8] or any significant claim to notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. As a knight, he easily meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. This is long established at AfD (I can't remember us ever deleting an article on a knight or even on someone awarded the CBE). If he was considered notable enough to receive one of Britain's highest honours, then he's surely notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia? As clerk to a county council (i.e. chief executive of the county government), especially of one of England's largest and most important counties, and formerly town clerk of Liverpool, one of England's most important cities, he also held two very important positions. He was also a member of several Royal Commissions. Clear keep. Clearly not in any way WP:MEMORIAL. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 16:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• So a British clerk isn't necessarily what comes to my mind? If the position is that important, I may have to withdraw my nomination. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, Scrooge and Marley might be a valid comparison to some in deepest darkest Burnley... but I'll make a note of your objections in my diary. Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

No, a clerk to a county council was the official, usually a qualified solicitor, now known as the chief executive of the county council. A town clerk performed the same function in a city. "Clerk" was often used in the title of senior officials in the British Civil Service too. But the fact he was knighted is what clinches it. That's quite an honour. Only the clerks of the most important councils would be knighted (as the chief executives of the most important councils still are today). -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep. As per Necrothesp above. Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw nomination per enlightenment. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:24, 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 delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Christeena Michelle Riggs

Christeena Michelle Riggs (  | 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 reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 19:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - obviously a successful actor that has played a number of stage roles over the years. There are a number of very brief mentions e.g. [9] [10], the Hartford COurant calls her "engaging" [11] and the LDS Church describe her as a "Broadway favorite" [12] but I don't think these amount to general notability. Looks like the article was originally authored by Mr Riggs. Sionk ( talk) 19:43, 28 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 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Replacement roles as Eponine and Cosette in Les Misérables [13] aren't enough. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:29, 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 Natural Law Party of Ontario. Mark Arsten ( talk) 03:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ron Parker

Ron Parker (  | 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 subject doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. The article as it stands appears to represent the entirety of sourceable content. Spicemix ( talk) 15:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 27. — cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment-- In the prior nomination in 2008 ( seen here) the BLP was a unanimous keep. But that was based on the premise that he was the leader of the Natural Law Party for Canada Ontario. This was implied in the article but was never cited by any sources and that text has since been removed. The sources that I found (election records) say he was a business man. Can anyone access the Ottawa Citizen source in the article? I could not find it even in the Ottawa Citizen archives.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Parker was the leader of the Natural Law Party of Ontario, not the Natural Law Party of Canada. Evidence of this can be procured without difficulty, if need be. There was a general consensus in 2008 that leaders of registered parties were notable, though I'm not sure that this consensus still holds at present. No vote for the time being. CJCurrie ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks CJ, I've corrected by comment above to indicate Ontario not Canada. However, I am unable to find a source (in the Natural Law Party of Canada or Natural Law Party of Ontario articles) that supports the assertion that he was party leader for Ontario. Can you point us to one? Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Here's an online reference: Eye Weekly, 20 May 1999. CJCurrie ( talk) 00:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks, I've added it to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Redirect/Merge -- After careful consideration.....I don't see any notability here as there is no significant coverage, only minor mentions in a few sources. It's clear he does not have "significant coverage" in the media and WP:Politician does not contain any special clause for party leaders, especially those that are only leaders of the party in a state or province. I agree with User:Squareanimal that WP is useful for minor facts, like who was the province leader of a defunct independent party with no electoral success, but a redirect/merge into Natural Law Party of Canada would retain that info just as well. I don't see any reason to maintain a stub on a non-notable, non-active, never elected politician.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep / Neutral Not sure this meets WP:GNG, but in general party leaders, even of Provinces rather than countries, should qualify for Wikipedia. It's for things like this that Wikipedia is useful. Squareanimal ( talk) 10:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Always at the political fringe and often derided for its kookiness, It's not as if the NLP was ever a mainstream party. I get next to zip when searching "'Ron Parker' natural law". There might be something in the local printed press, but all signs are that Ontario NLP leader doesn't add up to much, and he doesn't meet our WP:GNG. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 14:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment — I feel delete is still justified, but I'd go with a merge/redirect to the NLP of Canada article. Ron Parker appears to have no notability beyond his role as an unelected provincial party leader. Spicemix ( talk) 20:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• For leaders of political parties, the current practice is that they're allowed to have standalone articles, regardless of the party's mainstreamness or fringiness, if the resulting article can be properly sourced. Sometimes there are sufficient sources to make them notable enough to stand on their own, and sometimes there aren't — but if there aren't, then the person should be redirected to and discussed briefly in the main article on the political party itself rather than having a separate standalone BLP. The sourcing here is weak; two of the four references are to election results tables on Elections Canada (which serve to verify his vote totals, but cannot demonstrate notability), and the other two references are not sufficient to pass the substantial coverage test. So unless somebody can spruce it up with much better referencing than this, he needs to be merged into the party's article. Redirect to Natural Law Party of Ontario. Bearcat ( talk) 23:24, 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 03:04, 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) 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mooseheads, Canberra

Mooseheads, Canberra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. small mentions in trove [14]. LibStar ( talk) 03:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - It's a bar. It's been a party in at least one lawsuit that obtained press coverage. Ordinary coverage for the industry. No assertion of significance. Carrite ( talk) 07:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete unless noteworthiness can be shown - David Gerard ( talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment, leaning delete This bar has attracted a fair bit of coverage over the years in The Canberra Times, but aside from the fire and the bar's subsequent reopening, the stories have mainly been about misdeeds by the bar's patrons and so aren't very useful in establishing notability. The bar is certainly well known in Canberra, but I don't think that an article on it is really needed in an encyclopaedia. Nick-D ( talk) 01:08, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play

WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Inadequately sourced list article. The one reference, which is probably press-release-driven, does not list the award winners or discuss them in any detail. The source merely links to the the WhatsOnStage website. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 13:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Please can you let me know how best to reference award winners if not by linking to the official awards archive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh ( talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

For example, the tony awards page for best actress doesnt reference an external source? /info/en/?search=Tony_Award_for_Best_Actress_in_a_Play — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

References have to be from reliable sources and independent of the subject. They also need to discuss the topic (WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play) in some detail and not simply mention it. The Tony awards get substantial media coverage each year and they have a ~65 year history, so that's really not an apt comparison. - Mr X 14:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Whatsonstage awards get substantial media coverage (are you in the US by any chance)? The awards are regularly discussed by national press and influential people. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21466222 - http://www.theguardian.com/stage/2013/feb/18/sweeney-todd-whatsonstage-theatre-awards - http://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2013/02/chichester-festival-theatre-wins-six-prizes-at-the-whatsonstage-awards/

The same goes for this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Whatsonstage.com_Awards (how can you say that the article is about a non-notable website?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibenh ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikibenh, please sign all of your future talk page posts by typing four tildes at the end like this ~~~~

Let me quote from the notability guideline "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...". In my view, the sources that you presented are insufficient for meeting this standard. If there are good sources that discuss the Awards for Best Actor in a Play collectively, mentioning that they have been awarded every years since 2001, then perhaps this list article would be warranted. - Mr X 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I skipped over the main awards page AfD because I'm not familiar enough, but this one is crazy (especially in addition to awards by year when notability of the whole thing is barely established. Indiscriminate, fails LISTN per above. -- Rhododendrites ( talk) 19:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikibenh ( talk) 15:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC) I've added the results history to the main article Whatsonstage.com Awards now, so I'm happy for these seperate articles to be deleted. Thanks, Ben 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) 22:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Are you sure that we don't allow awards categories? What about Category:Theatre awards and its children? - Mr X 22:54, 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, Ymblanter ( talk) 08:59, 27 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) 22:26, 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - This is the perfect example of how to mess up AFD's, there are three separate AFD's ongoing one failed because the main awards are notable and now thats at AFD which given meets GNG and is unlikely to be deleted. Simple checks have not been carried out here and sources that cover are available. AFD is for notability not for editorial decisions that should be made through normal processes. This is a clear case of something that is notable and shouldn't be at AFD the following sources about the main awards all talk about best actor in play and this is for this years awards and it doesn't take long to find similar for all previous years including more in depth once the awards are actually awarded. BBC, The Guardian, The Express and the Belfast Telegraph. Nominator should not of made three nominations virtually at the same and should of waited for result of one or the other. Blethering Scot 12:32, 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. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ricky O'Neill

Ricky O'Neill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed PROD. The subject has only had 5 roles in various films and TV shows and most of them were as unnamed characters. They don't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. Dismas| ^(talk) 08:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Support First, I notify you all that I nominated it for deletion the first time (successfully), I tried then to find more sources than IMDB and also left a non-generic paragraph of advice to try to help the user with the article to give it a chance of being kept, but so far it doesn't look like they've taken the advice. CaptRik ( talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Well I did try a reference tvrage but it is unfortunate that is on the Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist. The newspaper article is a cpoy of of tvrage article I really don't qualified to try to fix this article. Perhaps it should be deleted.......... Venustar84 ( talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. ukexpat ( talk) 17:37, 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:57, 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. postdlf ( talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ecola Creek Watershed Council

Ecola Creek Watershed Council (  | 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 of notability for this very local organization. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No signficant coverage although notices of meetings for the org seem to be published in the local paper. -- Whpq ( talk) 18:07, 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, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 02:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete fails WP:ORG. and no relevance outside the small area this council is for. LibStar ( talk) 03:05, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Go Phightins ! 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rainbow Valley (Arizona)

Rainbow Valley (Arizona) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

An article on a neighborhood in Arizona ... Google search turns up nothing that if I googled the title of the neighborhood in which I grew up would not turn up (i.e. Mapquest, Zillow, perhaps an elementary school site, etc.) ... does not meet WP:GNG Go Phightins ! 05:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 07:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. According to the USGS ( 25035), Rainbow Valley is a populated place, a U6 unincorporated community. There is also a valley by same name nearby. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• I was just reading some notability guidelines and failed to find any that seemed specifically applicable, but places are not my area of expertise, so I will defer to you—does that automatically confer notability? Go Phightins ! 03:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• It's not a policy, but WP:GEOLAND spells it out. Clarityfiend ( talk) 15:27, 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) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. By longstanding general consensus, populated named places are notable. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Populated places are considered notable as part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer, according to longstanding precedent. The page should be moved to Rainbow Valley, Arizona though, according to WP:USPLACE. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 09:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Nominator's note - I could not tell whether or not this qualified as a populated place and was solely judging it on GNG, which it does not meet, however if it is considered a populated place and thus meets notability consensus, would anyone object if I withdrew my nomination, closed this discussion, and moved it to Rainbow Valley, Arizona per TheCatalyst31? Go Phightins ! 12:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Go right ahead. Clarityfiend ( talk) 13:30, 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 keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 05:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

For Life (Isis Gee song)

For Life (Isis Gee song) (  | 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 indicate that the songe meets either WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 16:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - song has been performed twice as it made the final of the worlds biggest music competition on television. Perhaps some source of this could be added though.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 13:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Being performed at a notable competition does not make the song notable. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 16:17, 30 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) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge Probably should be merged into her article with a redirect left behind. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• It's already covered in her article so there's nothing to merge and the complex qualifier makes this a very unlikely search term. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 13:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep FFS it's a Eurovision entry that made the finals. Which means it was the one song picked that year to represent the country of Poland. It then made it through the semi-final. As such, making a Eurovision final is the equivalent of winning a fairly serious award (although normally goes to a different type of song). On the other hand given that she sounds in my opinion like a Celine Dion knock-off and there's nationalism involved, the articles about her will be in Polish and published in Poland. No, I don't speak Polish so can't find them. Neonchameleon ( talk) 02:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Taking part in a notable contest gives a song notability for the fact that A) it qualified from the semi-finals; B) was performed in the finals; C) was viewed by over 125,000,000 people worldwide; and D) was on the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 compilation album. And I feel discomfort in the method the nominator replies back to everyone who has posted "keep" as if to force them to change their mind by dismissing their personal rationale for wanting to keep the article. Wes Mᴥuse 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• The notability of the song contest does not and cannot impart notability to the songs performed in it. Nor does its presence on one album or another. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, but the way you hastily respond to everyone who "keeps", comes across as intimidating and pointy. You had your say at the time of nomination. Please allow others their right to express their opinion and rationales, without intimidation. Thank you. Wes Mᴥuse 04:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for the nominator to respond to every non-agreeable 'vote'. While responding to guestions, etc. is acceptable, I thought the nominator was expected to leave the result up to the ones responding and to the closer. VMS Mosaic ( talk) 08:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Somerhill Gallery was nominated for deletion on the same day as this for alleged "failure of WP:GNG" and was granted notability and the article only had 276 views. This song article has had twice as many views and is being questioned for notability? Something seriously wrong in this world. Wes Mᴥuse 04:25, 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 keep. Keeping for now, feel free to propose merges on the article talk page. SarahStierch ( talk) 16:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Olympians (Marvel Comics)

Olympians (Marvel 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 Marvel 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) 17:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete There appear to be very few things that all the Marvel Olympians have in common, so I don't think anything would really be lost by deleting it. Everything else can be covered in the individual articles. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Gods (Marvel Comics) or delete. I agree with Howicus. There's little to be lost here. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to Gods (Marvel Comics). BOZ ( talk) 15:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Notable characters are Olympians, primary sources are available. Interviews where Olympian characters are discussed or reviews on comic books where Olympians appear exist, secondary sources are available. Studies on representation of mythology in comics exist and one of the most well known mythology is the Greek one, especially the gods, so comparisons are made, tertiary sources exist. In conclusion without any doubt, I choose keep. -- Crazy runner ( talk) 15:47, 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, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep or merge to Gods (Marvel Comics). VMS Mosaic ( talk) 06:02, 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 merge to Ulla Jones discography. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Ulla Jones discography and filmography

Ulla Jones discography and filmography (  | 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 discography was split by the author as Ulla Jones discography, the filmography is sufficent in Ulla Andersson (perhaps the discography should be merged, too). The name of the article doesn't present an obvious redirect. Maybe a histmerge with the discography page would be more appropriate. Anyway, this is a bit of a mess right now, and it seems we can do without this one based on what else exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:44, 30 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) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Merge back to subject's article. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 04:55, 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 keep. postdlf ( talk) 23:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mattias Svensson

Mattias Svensson (  | 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 BLP about a Swedish political writer has no independent sources, and the one (non-independent) source in the references is a deadlink. It is possible that there are sources in Swedish that I can't read, and if so I'm happy to see those added so the article can be kept. However, I looked to the the equivalent article on Swedish Wikipedia for pointers, and it is unreferenced and even shorter than the article here. RL0919 ( talk) 18:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per nom at first. I have now changed my vote to Keep per the !vote below. It is correct.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 17:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. While mostly active in Sweden, he's a rather high-profile and active commentator who gets regular attention in national media. (Agree that the svwiki article is quite poor, will have a look at it.) Tomas e ( talk) 16:17, 5 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) 02:26, 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 no consensus. Opinions remain divided about whether the article about this silly topic should be deleted because it has insufficient coverage in reliable sources and is an indiscriminate collection of information, or whether the opposite is the case. Because valid arguments can and in part have been been made for either case, there's no clear policy-mandated outcome and the article is kept by default.  Sandstein  10:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Exploding animal