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

The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Khan-Sharif Controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written article without clear intent, the notion of a "controversy" is highly subjective, as it the use of the word "blames". Furthermore, I am unsure whether or not the Khan-Sharif relationship merits a separate article. I would perhaps welcome an addition regarding possible coalition possibilities to the Pakistan 11 may elections article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_general_election,_2013 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwakigavli1234 ( talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 May 2013‎ (UTC) — Wikiwakigavli1234 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:V. Zia Khan 01:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Faizan - Let's talk! 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Faizan - Let's talk! 07:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR, article title is not appropriate as per WP:CRITERIA. Faizan - Let's talk! 07:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Is not notable enough to have an article of its own. —Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi ( тαlк) 06:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Zhao Fujiang (  | 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 has no independent sources and nothing that shows this person meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. It reads more like a tribute and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mdtemp ( talk) 22:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• There had been several additions made to this page, also citing and linking to various sources. Further read the edit made to the conversation ('talk') on Zhao Fuajing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I still don't see significant coverage by independent sources. Mdtemp ( talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have included many links to independent sources at the bottom of the article. These include both memoirs of the man by different people, as well as articles written by him and by others about him and his work. As I have mentioned in the 'Talk' section of Zhao Fujiang's page, all of the available sources are in Chinese (you can aid yourself with Google Translate if you cannot read them, to get a general sense of things). These sources also vary by years. All of the information available on Zhao Fujiang's page is mentioned several times on those articles I've included links to.

As of now, this Wikipedia entry is the first major source for information about this teacher in English. This does not take away from his great contribution to the general community of Chinese martial arts practitioners - both in China and elsewhere in the world. One has to understand that because of the Cultural Revolution and the conservative attitude of the Chinese Communist Party, it took a lot of time for the information about notable martial arts masters from China to arrive in the West. This article is part of an overall effort by many martial arts teachers to bring forth more information and knowledge of those teachers whose lifetime contributions to the martial arts communities were significant. The lineage chart which I have included on the page (and also on Xingyiquan), in which master Zhao is evidently present, is also a part of that effort.

Zhao Fujiang had been, in his day, as influential as teachers like Yip Man. The reason the latter became more famous was because he happened to have one student whose name was Bruce Lee, which in turn brought him fame via alternative means and pushed for the making of several films of his life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak Delete I see this is Mr. Bluestein's article of primary interest, but the lack of independent sources does seem problematic and is a frequent problem with martial arts articles. Based on the article's sources and my own search, I don't see that he meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:MANOTE. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, which is why lineage charts are irrelevant. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia should never be the "first major source for information" as stated by the defender above. There should always be reliable, secondary sources to back up any Wikipedia article. The external links (note: not references or inline citations) largely fail WP:RS as they consist of YouTube links, blog and forum postings. I'm unable to find any significant (English language) coverage of the subject and thus, IMO, fails WP:GNG. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi folks. I understand your concerns, but I find this line of logic problematic. There are an endless amount of materials that relate to Chinese and Japanese cultures which have nothing written on them in English. Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia. Surely, as stated, one would want it to be able to base stuff on sources written in its native language. However, consider the following: When someone does research on a subject that has not been researched before, which relates to a foreign culture, one needs to first know that this subject exists! The way I see it, it is partly the role of Wikipedia (to a lesser extent of course) to enable people to become exposed to subjects and people they could not have otherwise be reading of. Do you understand the innate paradox which I am pointing to here?...

Consider for instance the page on Piguaquan. The traditional version of this art is probably not practiced by more than a few hundred people nowadays (though the Modern Wushu version is very common). Up until last year, when I wrote the first extensive article in the English language on this art, one could barely find ANY info on it in English (I am myself a practitioner of that art). But now, through this page, people know much more about this art, and this would help many to further their research. I have even taken the time to write a more extensive page on the art on the Hebrew version of Wikipedia...

The culture and community of traditional martial arts is a lively and interactive mesh of people, ideas and traditions. For many thousands of years, an endless amount of such traditions have been lost because people were bent on notions of secrecy and withdrawing knowledge from others. We now live in a different era. We now recognize in this community, that the arts and their traditions can only survive if we openly share information, in the broadest sense possible.

The legacy of a martial arts master goes beyond the scope of the factual details of his life. There is a lot of value and importance to the understanding of what and which were his roots, and what were the fruits of his labour and teachings.

The latter two arguments are what had led me to create the extensive Xing Yi Quan lineage-chart, which I had originally included on Xingyiquan, and later also on Zhao Fujiang's page. These things were not created and written down in order to glorify anyone's name or sell any sort of product - they exists so a myriad of important traditions could be preserved. I gather that it is difficult for someone who has not studied in-depth, in a traditional manner, one of the arts practiced by Zhao Fujiang, to understand this importance and significance I write of. Such matters relate to a very rich culture that is not well known to the general public, or even to avid martial artists who do not practice the traditional Chinese martial arts. But I nonetheless make a plea to your common sense - consider what I have suggested, for these are not empty words, and the grand endeavor of preserving the culture of traditional martial arts is solely for the benefit of future practitioners of these arts.

That said, I will see to try to make for more accurate references within the article itself, in the hope that this will suffice.

Jonathan.bluestein ( talk) 14:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources and doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE, either. Perhaps the article can be saved off to the author's pages for further sourcing. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak Delete There's only one source currently on the article that could be considered reliable and that's the documentary/youtube link. I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it could potentially be a good source. The rest of the sources are not from reliable sources. However, one source doesn't make for significant coverage per WP:GNG. Transcendence ( talk) 00:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Jamane A Boyd Jr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible hoax. I did some research, and it appears that the statistics are fake, because they haven't been recorded anywhere. Another user tried a PROD, but for some reason, it was reverted and the user warned. I think the user was right in tagging the page for proposed deletion. Besides, I haven't found any significant coverage on this person, and he doesn't appear to have played in a professional league, so he fails WP:ATHLETE even if the article isn't a hoax. Lugia2453 ( talk) 21:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

My bad for reverting. Some quick research confirms Lugia2453 is correct.   FrostedΔ 14  22:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

His wiki profile picture is photoshopped. Sayjune ( talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is some information on him at recruiting web sites, but nothing of the type required to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: The article was originally declined at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jamane Boyd Jr. The creator then went ahead and moved into mainspace anyway. The creator is called "NFLProspect2014" and has never made an edit outside of this article. Could NFLProspect2014 be Mr. Boyd? Cbl62 ( talk) 00:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. There is an almost complete absence of coverage in independent, reliable sources, let alone in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. No specific notability guidelines are applicable per WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NGRIDIRON. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lacking in references, does not meet WP:NSPORTS and does not achieve notability through WP:GNG nor through any other guideline that I can find. Unable to confirm if it is a hoax at this time, but the image has a portion of the NFL logo in the background and I don't think that meets the standards we seek either. I can find no reason to retain this article.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 03:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I suspect this is not a hoax, but playing in a minor development league simply doesn't attract coverage. Even what appears to be their web site (on homestead.com) doesn't list an actual player to provide verifiability. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Brian Choi (  | 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 with only routine sports coverage and WP:NMMA with no top tier fights. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lacks non-routine coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl ( talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

MMA fighter with the usual routine sports coverage and no top tier fights--so he fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Short of WP:NMMA. Article seems to be fishing for WP:INHERIT. Perhaps someone can find coverage in East Asian languages. For now, fails. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 15:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete OneFC is not a top tier mma organization (see WP:MMATIER) so he does fail WP:NMMA. Coverage of him is routine. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl ( talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Eddie Ng (fighter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fighter with no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. The only significant coverage is an interview at bloodyelbow.com and I don't know if that is considered a reliable source. Otherwise all I'm seeing are the usual links to fight results, sherdog, and blogs. That's not enough to show me he meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete He clearly doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't believe his coverage meets WP:GNG either. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl ( talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

He's an MMA fighter with no top tier fights and the only sources are to organizational web sites or other routine coverage. The lack of significant coverage means he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Mdtemp ( talk) 21:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 23:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - seems to be a failry established MMA fighter with a couple of significant matches behind him.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

You should cite some policy reason he is notable, not just WP:ILIKEIT. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I did, he has been in a couple of significanat matches which proves he is in the world elite of his sport. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

That sounds more like WP:NOTINHERITED. Since he doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters at WP:NMMA, the kickboxer criteria at WP:KICK, and lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG, in what field are you claiming he's shown notability? Astudent0 ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Lacks non-routine coverage and fails WP:NMMA. Astudent0 ( talk) 18:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Non-routine? This person is dedicated to his sport he doesnt have time to "play around on the social scene" like his American counter-parts.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 19:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Apparently you don't understand what significant independent coverage means. It means that people working for reliable sources with no ties to him have to be writing about him, and not just routine sports coverage. It has nothing to do with what he writes or what's on youtube, twitter, or facebook. Astudent0 ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Unless more sourcing can be found for his kickboxing career that would warrant keeping him on WP:GNG grounds. Luchuslu ( talk) 20:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:MMANOT and WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. -- TreyGeek ( talk) 04:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. LlamaAl ( talk) 19:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Courcelles 22:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Saji Ur Rahman (  | 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 He got caught, he got released, not much of a biography Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and merge To List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. As a standalone bio, this is a WP:BLP1E at best, and the article seems almost entirely sourced to a single reporter (almost feels like an ad for this Tom Lasseter fellow), so there's no possible claim to significant coverage. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Wishy washy. I don't know, I'm kind of torn between delete and redirect/merge. Are these sources worthy of keeping? I'd like to see input from more editors. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable under general notability guideline. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown ( talk) 11:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete any potential notability is for a single event (being arrested and sent to Guantanamo Bay), so this fails WP:BLP1E. Nick-D ( talk) 11:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't think we should keep all of the gitmo prisoners, and awe have no been doing so, but I think we do when there are exception circumstances or exceptional coverage. This is not 1E. If someone is arrested and sent to a routine prison, it might be, but being sent to this particular place is highly unusual, and amounts to a separate event. It seems clear to me there will be continuing interest--I think some of our deletions will end up looking remarkably silly, because stories like his are the sort of thing that makes people being considered martyrs. (Don't confuse this with amy personal judgment of who ought to be regarded as a martyr--some horrible people have been so regarded by their supporters.)
• Redirect and merge To List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Faizan - Let's talk! 07:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect and merge to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. This article fails WP:BLP1E.— - dain omite   09:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Dea db eef 21:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Amir Abdur Rehman Cheema (  | 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:BLP1E & WP:VICTIM Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 20:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, what the hell is this. He's a criminal who was foiled in a matter of seconds. I once flushed a tennis ball down the toilet in the locker room bathrooms at my high school, can I have a Wikipedia article too? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Mezzo,are you really equating the importance of the events.? Does what he was trying to do seem that unimportant to you? No newspaper is going to cover your lost tennis ball, and apart from the intrinsic importance of the vents, that question of coverage is the basis of our usual guideline. this is perhaps the most over-extended false analogy I can remember being proposed here to denigrate the importance of a subject. The man was intent on a religiously motivated murder, and how long it took to catch him does not seem relevant. I'm commenting on the reasoning, not saying keep/delete, for of course it is the case that not all religiously motivated attempts to murder are notable , and I need to think about the coverage of this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree, the comment above is entirely inappropriate for an AfD based on uncivil language, poor argumentation, and lack of policy discussion. Please keep in mind the context -- this is not a locker room -- and be mindful of other audiences. Crtew ( talk) 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have one word to describe the analogy by MezzoMezzo, Ridiculous.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 10:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I didn't use a policy based argument because it was an article with only two sources, prior to CTew's edits, it honestly did seem that ridiculous to me. I can withdraw my push for deletion per the latest edits to the article, but I'm not sure of "what the hell" really is a breahc of uncivil language; lately, I've noticed the F-word thrown around on multiple AfD discussions, in every instance there were no repercussions. I'm not defending that, I'm just making the point that I feel "what the hell" is rather tame compared to a lot of what I've seen lately. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 07:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

that wasn't really the problem, but the nature of the comparison in your analogy DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) . reply

• Keep - per coverage of this "non notable criminal". seem to pass GNG.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 10:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

And the coverage is where exactly? three hitrs og GNews Zero hits on GBooks other than Wikipedia ripoffs. And a general search brings up only 33,900 hits, I am not going to look at how many are RS, but I am willing to bet that those that are only mention the one thing. Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. As an stand-alone article this would clearly fall under WP:NOTNEWS. In the context with Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy it shows one of the supranational results of the controversy. Per WP:GNG. The press coverage of the controversy was way more intense in Europe then in the US. -- Ben Ben ( talk) 19:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep: This person passes WP:SIGCOV and was widely reported in Germany and Pakistan, as well as by the BBC and Al-Jazeera. The nominator had made several gross errors in submitting this to AfD. First, a BLP1E applies only to living persons, which is what the "LP" stands for. Second, he later asserts that he can't find any sources for the subject. That's true if you search by the whole name, but if you search for "Cheema" and "suicide" or other terms, then you will find many more reliable sources (or RS articles). As for WP:Victim, this is for a normal crime, but when you have a situation that is controversial and international relations comes into play, then it's not as relevant. Moreoever, I agree with others above that his death was part of the larger ramifications of the publication of the cartoons and is a good example of how Germany was affected. Moreover, the attack on a journalist makes this an important issue for WikiProject Journalism. Crtew ( talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment - Fresh Content: I added some other references to the sources. Crtew ( talk) 07:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mediran ( t • c) 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation (  | 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 organization, no real news/web/book citations. See also Alan Curtis (criminologist) which I have also nominated for deletion Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep or redirect to Kerner Commission. Note that there's a separate, unrelated Eisenhower Foundation located at [1]. After taking out the results for that one, there aren't really any sources dedicated to the subject, but it is brought up a lot in relation to the Kerner Commission [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] — Frankie ( talk) 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Back in 2007 I stubbified the article to remove copyvio. I urge taking a look at the previous version to see what else could be said, if someone were willing to write it properly. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just clicking on the Gnews link reveals enough coverage of their activities to qualify under WP:ORG. That said, since a lot of it seems to be grant-giving and the like, I dunno how good an article we can get. It may stay a decent semi-permastub, which is not really a problem. Ray ^Talk 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - not a famous, but a notable, commission. There are plenty of available sources that could be added to the article to bring it up to 'start' status. Bearian ( talk) 17:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Alan Curtis (criminologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Biography article, makes some interesting claims that could indicate notability, but I cannot find 3rd party sources for the guy. Everything could be inflated resume fluff.

No newspapers etc. A few in passing cites in other works, so he might pass WP:SCHOLAR, but I think its iffy.

All refs/links are to the guys own website. Lots of anon IP edits, which I would guess are probably COI editors (if not the subject himself).

Also previously had major WP:COATRACK advertising the company he founded, and contained major copy-vio from their marketing speak.

The remainder of the article reads like it should be copy-vio from the "about us" page from somewhere, but I am unable to find it if so.

Tons of OR/SPS/PEACOCK.

See also related article AFD at Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation for this guys org.

Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, or redirect to the foundation's article if it's kept. The best I can see online is this mention — Frankie ( talk) 19:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It would also be possible to Revert to the NPOV version I rewrote from the original copy entry in 2007 (cleaned up a little & updated) . What was originally submitted was a promotional copyvio--the current version doesn't have the copyvio , but restored the promotion. It is extremely discouraging when I rescue something and it gets turned right back to junk again. At that point I usually give up on it. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per DGG. If there's nothing left when you excise the promotion, best to be done with it. I don't know that a redirect is warranted, either - the (criminologist) addendum doesn't make for a really useful search term, and there are precisely two non-redirect links from the Article space to this title, making it easily fixed. Not worthwhile. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. This is a copy-paste move of User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band) - and it's not ready for primetime yet, plus should not be moved out of the user's sandbox until they're ready ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

Meh, I don't know if this is quite CSD material. Doesn't seem that notable, though. Does a blurb in Rolling Stone confer notability? Ignatz mice• talk 18:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment hang on a tick—going through the author's contribs I found User:Marcushamblett/Ducktails (band), which was deleted, recreated, and userfied. This page is a copy of the userfied one, so I've tagged it for CSD A10. I'll see what ends up happening. Ignatz mice• talk 18:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Just going by the current refs we have Rolling Stone, The Guardian, SPIN, and AMG [10], (Pitchfork too, but I cannot see those at the moment), all with enough content about the subject and their albums to meet notability, and by the treatment they provide I imagine there must be more out there — Frankie ( talk) 18:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. So some of the bare refs need cleanup, but this more than passes NMUSIC based on the refs already included in the article. The coverage from Pitchfork alone is sufficient. czar  ·  · 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.— Kww( talk) 02:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

no assertion of notability - no indi 2ndary source fails WP:GNG and quick check didn't find any. SPAM / COI / SPA editor(s) Widefox; talk 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  ·  · 17:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have tried to add some further references and external links to illustrate the use of OVPsim away from OVP/Imperas contributors. Please provide feedback on further changes that should be made to allow this contribution to remain. Thanks Duncgrah ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

There's 3 non-independent external links (the ARM link by partners i.e. OVP/Imperas), and a wiki. None of those count as WP:RS for notability. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Weak delete In an effort to prevent this from being open for all eternity. - I fail to see how this meets WP:GNG, I have looked around a search engine and sources certainly are not substantial and it's debatable whether any thing that could meet WP:RS has been provided, I certainly couldn't find anything obviously so via an internet search. However there is some usage of the term in the Google Scholar results, but this seems to be more about inclusion of the concept in the work rather than the work being about the concept which in it's seemingly early stage in life has yet to progress beyond an acronym of convenience to a term in common usage in it's own right much as those such as LAMP or PHP have done. -- wintonian ^talk 02:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Nominator suggest userify to aid closing this: as compromise so that 2ndary sources can be added satisfying WP:GNG (and submitted to new article creation). Duncgrah - would you want this moved to your page, and Wintonian does that sounds good with you? If so we can close. Widefox; talk 10:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Good idea should have thought of that myself. The other option of course is to merge into and create a section in an appropriate article but I would like some issues like the seas-of-blue worked out before or during the process.The 3rd default option seem to be to keep in article space as no consensus, which in my opinion is a very poor 'we don't know what to do' one. It's not really my subject area so unfortunately there is no hope of me tidying it up. Even if we stretch things to their limits 1 weak delete is hardly consensus. -- wintonian ^talk 21:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Agree 1 weak delete + Duncgrah hasn't !voted or commented against GNG criteria of several substantial secondary independent sources. A third relisting may bring another opinion in, especially with the less drastic userify option. Widefox; talk 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep, as the title has already been properly redirected to Bipolar disorder. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

After being nominated for merging nearly three years ago, I finally merged it into Bipolar Disorder. johncheverly 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. If you're completing a merge, the page should become a redirect to the new location, not deleted, no? AfD is for proposed page deletions only. czar  ·  · 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy close. The merged page should always be replaced with a redirect, not deleted. Dricherby ( talk) 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep Why would it not be a redirect? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Nick Pope (footballer) (  | 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 same reasons of the two previous afd's still apply. He has still not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep He has played in a fully-professional league - see the BBC match report from Saturday's game. It even says this in the article and is included in the infobox. Number 5 7 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep. Please note that WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news stories. This is certainly not routine as every editor has opined with the exception of the nominator and one other editor. Victor Victoria ( talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This article is an OR and POV magnet attracting rapid changes without discussion. It belongs on Wikinews, not here. Guy Macon ( talk) 16:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment as Nom. WP:NOTNEWS is quite clear: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. ... Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." I would also note that the flurry of keep votes below are a direct result of me notifying all of the contributors to the page (some of whom only write about fast-breaking-events), and may not reflect the consensus of the larger community. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

For those who are using the "It's in the news, therefor it must be notable" argument, do any of you have any evidence that it has enduring notability? Notability is not temporary. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

For anyone arguing "It's in the news so it can't possibly be notable," please note that most notable events started out as news stories. We do not have to wait for some long period before creating an article, when some extraordinary event occurs.Perhaps you know of numerous other instances where multiple persons were held captive for a decade or so, then rescued, and those cases were non-notable? Edison ( talk) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Nom -- would it be possible to change your "delete" header to "comment"? Per convention, noms don't both nominate and then !vote on their nomination, to avoid the appearance of double-!voting, which of course was not your intent. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Start with the first sentence of NOTNEWS "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. " This story has had significant press in Cleveland plus national/international coverage (AMW etc) for 10 years. Today it is all over the news worldwide. If you like Wikinews so much, go write there instead. So far everything added has been heavily sourced and well balanced. You can't delete because an article might have problems someday maybe. SNOW KEEP. Legacypac ( talk) 16:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Yes, it's an OR and PoV magnet (I hope people keep a very close eye on any BLP issues and the like), but it has received a vast amount of press coverage. As much as this is sensationalistic, every major news outlet in the world is covering it. Three women being held captive for a decade is undoubtably notable; this is not a common occurrence. –  2001:db8:: ( rfc |  diff) 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I agree with the relevance of the article. It has good sources and it is well written with the information provided so far. -- Meluuu ( talk) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. May be revisited in a few months once things settle down. But for now, this is huge. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per 2001:db8. This has world wide coverage, and meets the notability guidelines. Just because it will attract POV and OR is not a reason to delete it. Martin451 ( talk) 16:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per above. There's always time to delete later. Be bold. GreaseballNYC ( talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per NOTNEWS. There's always time to add later. Be bolder... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This is getting global news coverage (I came here to see why it wasn't at least nominated for the ITN slot on the main page) and is clearly an encyclopaedic topic comparable to the Fritzl case - you don't keep three women alive and confined in a suburban home for 10 years while people are actively searching for them without there being long-term enduring coverage and media interest. As of right now I don't see any ORR and only one marked unsourced statement (that is not relevant to the notability). Thryduulf ( talk) 17:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep, major news even outside the US, many of these news sources are comparing it to the Fritzl case and the kidnapping of Natascha Kampusch. Donnie Park ( talk) 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Of course there is current news coverage; it's currently a current event. But it doesn't take a WP:CRYSTALBALL to realize that a recovery of three kidnap victims from a decade ago is a story of lasting endurance and not mere news. This is akin to such "news" stories as Elizabeth Smart and Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. If deleted, it's just going to be recreated in a month when it's even more obvious that this is not merely a news event. The only thing deletion will accomplish is deprive Wikipedia readers of information of it for a month or so.

Lousy article title, though. TJRC ( talk) 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Being the top story in today's news cycle does not mean that the incident should be deleted. Many notable events have started out as major breaking news stories. As an apparent incident of multiple victims being abducted separately, held for a decade or so, then rescued, it is not a run-of-the-mill abduction or sex crime. We do not have to wait weeks before creating an article about such an incident, which experience and common sense suggests has encyclopedic importance. If somehow the story turns out not to get coverage in the course of the investigation and any trials which take place, then we can delete it some months down the road. If people are putting inappropriate text into the article, then revert/warn/block as necessary and semi-protect the article or fully protect it. It does not make sense, and is not supported by policies or guidelines, to delete the article to prevent people from editing it inappropriately. Edison ( talk) 17:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is clearly beyong the realm of mere NEWS, and therefore NOTNEWS does not apply. Agree with the sentiment about the title though... Giant Snowman 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• NOTNEWS does not say "ïf it's in the news WP can't cover it" Now the media is reporting multiple births and miscarriages (hope it is not true, but there was a Criminal Minds episode like this. Not run of the mill. ^[1] Legacypac ( talk) 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep- are you people nuts?! Of course there should be an article on these people being held captive all that time. It's very notable.-- feline1 ( talk) 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep This clearly goes beyond the scope of NOTNEWS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - This article (lousy title, not withstanding) documents a remarkable event, an extra-ordinary event. It deserves an entry in the annals of documented crimes here on Wikipedia. Haxwell ( talk) 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep - This is the major story of the day on every major news outlet and information resource in America, and many major news outlets around the world are giving it coverage. However, its subject matter, relevance of information, and the involvement of mysteries once unsolved will make this article a subject of study and review indefinitely. Just because something is a current event does not merit an automatic deletion just because it's all new and shiny. If that were the case, then how about we go back in time and make sure Wikipedia readers can't read about the Boston Marathon bombings for at least a week? That event is STILL current, and this one may not wrap up anytime soon as well. Again, it's one thing to talk about something with very little exposure and very little lasting power, but this story has and will have neither of those problems. Rickrollerz ( talk) 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep – Just because it's a current event doesn't mean that it's not notable. I think that NOTNEWS is more oriented toward keeping Wikipedia free of otherwise non-notable news events that receive minor press coverage. ("For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.") This is a much more substantial and notable story and event and thus I think the article should be kept. AgnosticAphid talk 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Snow Keep. Obviously. The rationale for the nomination is made-up one, rather than a wp-accepted rationale for a nomination. Under that thinking, we would delete abortion as a "POV magnet attracting rapid changes without discussion". Goes way beyond nothenews, as explained by a number of the !voters. This is now 18-2 for keep ... snow would be appropriate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 17:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was snow keep. If the tone is problematic, just fix it! :) · Salvidrim!·  ✉ 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Kirby: Right Back at Ya! (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Find video game sources:  "Kirby: Right Back at Ya!" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This page, and the corresponding List of Kirby: Right Back at Ya! episodes read as an unambiguous promotional fansite and should be deleted it violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Technical 13 ( talk) 16:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

* Delete as proposer. Technical 13 ( talk) 16:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) The nominator doesn't need to post delete. Dream Focus 04:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I'm not seeing any kind of promotion at all in either article. If there's any promotional language in them, they should just be edited, and not deleted. Lugia2453 ( talk) 16:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I see no promotions at all in the articles, just some episode summaries, air dates, and language titles. As well as information for stuff relating to and about the Kirby Franchise also, no solid argument for deletion in anyway at all, per WP:UGLY. -- Vaati the Wind Demon ( talk) 16:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: The article certainly goes to excessive, unsourced detail on some of its subject matter, but that does not make it promotional; it's not necessarily advertising the show. Not solid grounds for deletion per WP:UGLY. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) czar  ·  · 17:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - AFD is not clean up. The article is not in great shape, but that can be fixed. An official anime off a long-running video game series like this is easly going to meet the notability guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per ThomasO1989's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 19:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep the promotion issue can be fixed by editorial means and I highly doubt that there are any questions regarding the article meeting WP:N. At worst the article may need an overhaul but that a job for the talk page not AFD.-- 174.95.111.89 ( talk) 01:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep This should be a speedy close. Bad nomination. No valid reason given to delete it. A show with a hundred episodes played on major stations is going to be notable. Dream Focus 04:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Snow Keep Any article can be viewed as promoting its subject, but that is never a reason to delete when the subject is obviously notable. It would be criminal to destroy such a well written and attractively illustrated article. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the subject is obviously notable, and that's what matters. AfD is not cleanup. The article has some sourcing issues, but its not blatantly promoting its subject. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 18:17, 7 May 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page Aviral Shrivastava (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) czar  ·  · 19:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Aviral Shrivastava (  | 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, article seems to be a resume Ghorpaapi ( talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Citation record not strong enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and no evidence of passing any other notability criterion. The conflict of interest (all edits to the article except for the AfD are by "Avirals") is also a big problem. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• delete Sheer WP:COI self-promotion, so I've WP:CSD#A7'd it too. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. CSD G5. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

Created by blocked sock that uses Wikipedia to push a POV. I originally limited myself to recommending severe cuts to the article, as the topic existed in reliable sources, but I've now come to think that we would be better served with WP:TNT, since almost no sources in the article meet our standards and it appears still to be full of original synthesis. Let a competent and neutral user handle the topic if he or she so desires. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12) by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

BASICS – bibliodrama as a way of intercultural learning for adults (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Unstructured, Unreferenced, Promotional language as if to sell or produce something. Ghorpaapi ( talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete: Non-notable, promotional, and a copyright infringement of this website. I've tagged it as such. Lugia2453 ( talk) 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete.— Kww( talk) 02:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Iqbal Ahmed Khan (  | 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 and or citations Ghorpaapi ( talk) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Please do not delete this account as this is an account of very famous Indian Classical vocalist of Dilli Gharana, India. for reference check his website www.dilligharana.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran4lov ( talk • contribs) 7 May 2013

• Comment. I found a passing mention here. I'll look for better sources tomorrow. If verified, this person passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it's more likely that it's a different person with the same name. -- wintonian ^talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete if sources don't show up by the end of this AfD. The name is sufficiently common that Googling is not helpful, and as currently written the article fails WP:V, a core policy. If we can get some good sources, it would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Ray ^Talk 19:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not much to add to the above comments really, just that the article certainly does assert notability per WP:POLITICIAN, but there seem to be no sources (in English at least) that support this and whilst the name seems to be fairly common I think we would need a good source that makes clear that the subject is this same person and not just their namesake with similar characteristics. I think this is going to be one of those articles that would be primarily supported by foreign language sources if it is retained and any can be found, until then I don't think it should remain. -- wintonian ^talk 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The comment above by Imran4lov is confusing as this article appears to refer to a different person. As a politician, this person clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN except so far as no citations are given. Bondegezou ( talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 17:49, 7 May 2013 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Mobile Compliance (highly biased essay, not an encyclopaedia article) czar  ·  · 19:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Mobile Compliance (  | 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 seems to be an essay, nextly there are no citations. Ghorpaapi ( talk) 15:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I have not had a chance to put in the citation and references. This page is still under development. I have all the information necessary for this page, just havent inserted it :all in yet. Thank You. Mobilecomp ( talk) 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Your Username and the article you are trying to create both seem to be the same,and hence the conflict of interest comes into the scene. Please use User:Mobilecomp/sandbox for experimenting with your articles and also refer to WP:YFA. In case you have any questions please do not hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Ghorpaapi ( talk) 15:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I see your point, but i did that on purpose so it would be the same. I didn't realize it would cause a problem. But dont delete the page, there is no conflict of interest, just information concerning mobile compliance within enterprise. I still need to add citations and references. Mobilecomp ( talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Without taking a side here, I will just say that this can be userfied (moved out of mainspace and copied into a subspace of Mobilecomp). There may be an article to come from this, I have no idea, but userfying until is is ready to be submitted via WP:AFC or just moved back into main space is one option that might satisfy both sides. Leave a note on my talk page or ask any admin if it is decided that is the best outcome. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy deletion - leaving redirect behind per suggestion. - Vianello ( Talk) 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

Bit of a coatrack for the domain name. No indication that this is a notable product. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete Qualifies under A11 and possible G3 for hoax. Karl 334 ^{Talk- -Contribs} 15:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy per WP:CSD#G11 and tagged. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Shampoo#Animal, merge at editor's discretion if references can be provided. I can't find any source to suggest that horse shampoo is particularly notable, but aside from the external link I'm not seeing any promotional concerns to justify a G11. The claims about its effectiveness are not currently supported, but a search online reveals that it is at least a subject of discussion, not really a hoax, and if properly sourced they can be included in the proposed section (which, BTW, does say near the beginning that these products should never be used on humans) — Frankie ( talk) 16:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The content is pretty much junk as it is, I don't see anything worth merging, nor anything worth even keeping available in history. I can understand a redirect after delete, but not a merge. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 16:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The content is indeed poor so I don't feel strongly about it, but barring any serious issues that would require deletion, it is best to leave the content behind the redirect for interested editors to decide what is salvageable — Frankie ( talk) 17:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Probably artspam attempt. When there's a title and a site that matches the title, that's what I suspect. Otherwise, hoax. Peridon ( talk) 16:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Surf Association of Madeira (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominated for a PROD before by someone else, but deleted by the author. WP:ORG. Organisation is local in nature and of no special importance. Sources asserting notability are not to be found in English, only some blogs turn up. Crispulop ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No media coverage in English or even Portuguese except for a local blog and a couple of specialized surf sites. Does not satisfy WP:ORG. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 11:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Simply unnotable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{( Talk to me)} 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if verifiable sources can be found. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hovercraft "Dragonfly" (  | 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 subject of this article has mulitple issues with verification and notability - none of the links are live, and I've followed the instructions on WP:N to search for aternatives with no success. The editor who created the page and added the details has no talk or user page. Their contributions to WP are restricted entirely to this article and all took place in March 2011, with no activity since. I believe that the article may have been intended to advertise a business venture that did not succeed, and so brings issues of "what wikipedia is not" to the table. There are no links to this article on Wikipedia. Wikiwayman ( talk) 14:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Not notable. HairyWombat 16:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete, non notable. Also well aware of WP:JNN. →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Applying some google-fu turns up nothing for this topic, although I did find considerably more information about a kid's show where they built a hovercraft... Maury Markowitz ( talk) 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Bodies in argumentation (  | 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 a notable concept (the term "Bodies in argumentation" appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia). No objection to the creation of articles on Kevin DeLuca or Unruly Arguments if they merit such, but to have an originally-titled page about a single section of a (probably) non-notable article by a (possibly)non-notable academic is putting the cart way, way before the horse. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:NFT/ WP:SOAP and maybe WP:NOT#OR. If there were articles on the author or the publication, then this should be redirected to it, probably without merger given this is unsourced. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 15:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete violates WP:OR and WP:SYN Curb Chain ( talk) 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf ( talk) 16:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

List of historical drama films (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

List article with very loose selection criteria (ie topic is basically an indiscriminate list) 1292simon ( talk) 13:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Per WP:LISTPURP, as a functional navigational aid. It's a list of historical drama films, which is a notable genre of film, so it's not particularly indiscriminate . Also, the article has been around since November 2001 and receives a high number of page hits (See article traffic statistics for May 2013). The page received 37,635 page views in March 2013 (See article traffic statistics for April 2013). Outright deletion of this article would be a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 13:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep Clearly defined list with notable entries. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a fully appropriate list topic per Northamerica1000's argument. However, I am not sure if the term "historical drama film" is more common than "historical film", for which there are numerous results in Google Books Search. In addition to keeping this list, I would also advocate for creating a film genre article (as historical drama film and its synonymous terms) redirect here). EDIT: This is a recent book that very much demonstrates the notability of the genre, and it is common to have lists of films that fall under an established genre. Erik ( talk | contribs) 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Northamerica1000 comments. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep as a list article with clearly defined inclusion criteria. To disagree with the nominator's feeling it "indescriminate", it nicely meets WP:LISTPURP and serves Wikipeidia readers as a functional navigational aid. To agree with NA1K's analysis, as a list of notable historical drama films, a notable genre of film, it's not particularly indiscriminate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Northamerica1000 comments. Sound, well organized. Truth or consequences-2 ( talk) 12:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment: My concern is that if any historical drama can be added to this list, there are thousands of potential entries. At which point, the article becomes too large to be much use. 1292simon ( talk) 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

  Simon, your concern is understandable, but the answer is not to delete this list but to split the content into smaller lists. For example, see List of actors and List of science fiction films. We could discuss how to do that, but it is not a reason for deletion. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was KEEP ( non-admin closure). Cabe 6403 ^{( Talk• Sign)} 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Andrew Landeryou (  | 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:NOTE FlatOut 13:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - I accept the argument by Cullen328 that the most notorious are notable. FlatOut 03:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Strong delete. The subject is not notable. Vexnews may be, but the subject is not. There is little prospect for expanding the article due to lack of independent reliable sources. FlatOut 13:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep The sources already in the article are from prominent Australian media outlets, and show that the subject is notable. There is no basis for presuming that the article can't be improved, and it is an acceptable short article now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Certainly notorious, is that the same as notable? FlatOut 05:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Reply The terms "notable" as Wikipedia defines it, and "notorious" as used more broadly, are by no means mutually exclusive. It is safe to say that most truly notorious people are notable and therefore worthy of Wikipedia articles. We don't limit our biographical coverage to upstanding citizens with unblemished reputations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

Student-run, amateur "professional" wresting at university. No third party sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. GrapedApe ( talk) 12:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete. Just some more UniVanity. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete: It's a vanity article, and I wasn't able to find much in the way of reliable sources. None of the sources in the article would be ones that would be considered reliable. Lugia2453 ( talk) 17:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Not notable wrestling event. STATic message me! 04:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete nothing offcampus seems to mention this event.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a notable event. LM2000 ( talk) 06:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

Non-notable student theater troupe. No third party sources to establish notability under WP:GNG. Fails alternate notability standards in WP:CLUB GrapedApe ( talk) 12:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep This gets coverage beyond Northwestern. See BroadwayWorld.com and ABCLocal.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That's a blog and a re-print of a press release. How do you figure that those satisfy WP:GNG.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Life magazine gave them their own writeup in 1951: "Life Goes to the Dolphin Show". The Chicago Tribune has written about them possibly every year: "Northwestern Dolphin Show Is Splashy Event" (1951), "Scherazade Goes Swimming" (1965), "N.U. Show May Provide Peek at Future Entertainers" (1995), and many more. Binksternet ( talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Go U Northwestern (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

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

Non-notable school song. Fails WP:GNG, because it has no independent third party sources to establish notability. Fails all alternate notability options in WP:SONG. Previous nomination was procedurally closed GrapedApe ( talk) 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Well known 100 year old fight song for a historic college football program, also used by numerous other colleges and high schools. GNews and HighBeam [11] show plenty of sources referencing both; someone who can get past the paywalls (or whose HighBeam subscription has not recently expired (grumble) ) can add them to the article, but it's clear this is notable in the universe of fight songs. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 15:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Ranked among the best college fight songs: #35 in this listing. One of the best-known US college songs, popular for a century, used by a number of other schools: [12], [13]. Satisfies guideline WP:NSONG by being recorded by numerous notable bands and recording groups. Recorded by Guy Lombardo in 1929 as part of a medley of most popular college fight songs, on Columbia 1996-D: [14], which was a hit in the US charts for 1929: [15].. By 1940 it was [16] included in a collection of "old college favorites" in an album. It has been commercially released as a single by well known bands such as the big band of Jan Garber in 1949 on Capital 57-676: [17]. Edison ( talk) 15:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Edison, notability established. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep no brainer per Edison.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep fight songs of major universities are typically kept. For a 100 year old song that is not presently used, I think it would be even more important to keep it as online references are likely to not exist but offline references are a different story. I'm confident the information can be verified in offline reliable sources.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Where did you get the idea it is no longer used? It is still used by Northwestern [http://www.nusports.com/trads/nw-songs.html [18] as well as by other colleges and high schools, as referenced above. Edison ( talk) 02:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

API calls are not of themselves notable, and there is nothing in his article to suggest that the function concerned is exceptional. I PRODed a lot of articles of this type which the contributor has challenged. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 11:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• ZwTerminateProcess, NtTerminateProcess, and most of other Zakblade2000’s stuff are not useful as standalone articles. These should be merged to one list of Native API calls (though as redirects these entries can certainly be useful). Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 13:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete because Wikipedia is not an appendix to MSDN. For your information, Sfan00 IMG, you should have probably made a single WP:BUNDLEd nomination for all of these pages, so that we do not have to scatter similar arguments over several pages… Keφr 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- BDD ( talk) 21:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

As per the prod "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Some of the references are dead links, some don't actually mention Jordon Hodges, and the others either only barely mention him, are unreliable or non-independent sources, or are only local coverage. (Note: The article was rejected at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Jordon Hodges for lack of notability, but the author went ahead and created it anyway.)" and the second prod2 "note also the deception in the intro, making it look like blue links for Michigan Film Awards and Uptown International Film Festival by individually linking each word." Trying to make the awards seem more important. Hodges lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions (currently three blue linked but one is at afd, one is proposed for deletion and the other is a very minor roll ("Police Officer (uncredited)" on imdb)). Prod removed by "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures" who owns one of Hodges pictures and who has stated that using Wikipedia "is part of a marketing game plan." [19] duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I guess it's time for my traditional "run through of the sources" for anyone coming in. (It also helps me gather my thoughts as well.)

I'm trying really, really hard to be neutral but I'll admit that I'm probably going to be slightly more skeptical considering that one of the editors has already admitted outright that this is a marketing campaign for Hodges. I'll see what I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Hodges is a young actor, and there is 3 of his biggest feature films yet to be released. If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot. Also if you happen to watch any of the films trailers, I know they cannot really be an RS, you will see that they are major films. (just go to SandCastlesFilm.com he is the lead along with Clint Howard & other notable people) I did catch a glimpse of Hodges doing a big article for Student Film Maker Magazine and HD Pro Guide, which is two pretty major sources. The articles just have not been released yet. I feel like Hodges is has nobility, just not slap in your face nobility yet. For example, there are 3 feature films that are in 90% of video stores in America, he is the lead in 2 of them, 1 has just his face on the cover. (Deadly Karma, American Scream King, Fraternity House) I just found an article all about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't It Cool News, which is one of the biggest movie sites on the planet. They called American Scream King a "true gem". See here: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/52517 I will add it on the Jordon Hodges page now as an RS, no idea why it wasn't in the first place. This source alone gives nobility. KonstantineUO 7 May 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC) ^[2]— KonstantineUO ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER reply

— KonstantineUO ( talk • contribs) has repeatedly declared a conflict of interest, being an executive of the company responsible for Jordon Hodges's films. See, for example, this edit.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

The fact that his films are in 90% of video stores in America (if it's true: you give no source for that statistic) just shows that the film is widely marketed, and tells us nothing about independent coverage, which is what is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

duffbeerforme I believe you're accidentally being misleading. On your page, [29] and I quote from what the user wrote: "Also we have not put it on Indie Wire, or any major publication on purpose. That is part of a marketing game plan. It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now. Thank you. " -- It doesn't say that Wikipedia is used for a marketing game plan, it says that they have not used their publicist to pursue their marketing game plan yet on things like Indie Wire, etc. That is part of the marketing game plan, not Wikipedia or IMDb. They are not saying Wikipedia is part of the marketing game plan, they are saying the other things are part of the marketing game plan. Probably trying to info you more, or to explain to you how it works in the film industry. Please do not quote things out of context, though I do understand how the mistake was made. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

When I made the claim I included a link to the unedited post So others can judge for themselves. I stand by my reading of the comment. "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now." The plan is to have it on those three. Agreeing or disagreeing about the semantics of that promotional account is not really that important. Someone actively involved in the promotion of a Hodges project is actively involved in trying to keep some related articles here. Sound Familiar? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Really, in the context of the message, "It's on IMDb, Wiki, we have a website, all we want for now", coming immediately after "That is part of a marketing game plan", clearly means that putting it on Wikipedia is part of the "marketing game plan". Vorspire (the author of the article) is either surprisingly blind to the most obvious reading of that remark, or else disingenuous. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

No, I believe you just do not understand how the business works. Nobody, ever would need a Wiki for marketing. Sorry, Wiki is just information, it isn't selling anything. Also the user, in the quoted text above, was talking about marketing about a movie, not a person, Sand Castles, in the context of the Wikipedia page Sand Castles (which happens to be part of Hodges's filmography) But that page was already deleted as they needed more news clippings (look for yourself). Maybe you guys get extra points on your account for deleting solid information? Not sure how this works yet, but if that's the case, Wiki's system isn't what I thought it was. Everyone seems to try and delete things, but nobody wants to contribute to sources or facts themselves. I am quite confused. Vorspire ( talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

I just added many notable references to the page Jordon Hodges -- That should be suitable now. I am still learning everything about Wikipedia and the code/language. Not sure what to do from here as far as this goes. duffbeerforme I believe I have addressed all of your concerns above, most were just poor initial efforts in the first place, easily fixed. On a side note:I have found in my searches, a gold mine for many of the titles listed in Hodges filmography with a lot of great sources. If everything meets notable guidelines, I will make as many pages of those films as I can. Vorspire 7 May 2013— Vorspire ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The page had a right to argue deletion before, but many sources have been added and coverage that is just not local for me to saying definitely keep. Has significant coverage in one of the movie industries most notable companies Ain't It Cool News (which is now sourced on his page, it was not before) also sourced in the large Michigan paper Grand Valley Lanthorn among many others. The people arguing for deletion of the page are searching for the wrong things, like JamesBWatson searching for "American Scream" instead of the title of the film "American Scream King", just a lot of minor mistakes being made. duffbeerforme tried to quote someone saying the Wikipedia was for a marketing campaign, for one, that was about a film titled Sand Castles which happens to be in Hodges filmography, but really they were saying they didn't have enough sources yet for that film title and they wouldn't until they "started their marketing campaign" as how all films leading up to the release work. That quote had nothing to do with Hodges, just a movie he is attached to, and that page has already been deleted. -- Anyone can go to Hodges' IMDb and start searching the titles he has been in and will see he is more than notable. Everyone says to source something cause it's much easier to type a sentence than it is to search and source a page, which I have done for this. Vorspire ( talk) 15:29, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

"which happens to be in Hodges filmography", "just a movie he is attached to". You've changed your tune a bit there. When you first started the Jordan Hodges article that film was a central feature. But apparently "The original creator of the page just frankly, did a poor job." Yep that was you. Or did you forget which account you where using at the time? It's not a film that just happens to be in Hodges filmography, He was a writer, producer and lead actor. duffbeerforme ( talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand you're mad duffbeerforme for me busting you out for doing a poor job with this. I apologize. Remember this entire time I have been researching sources, etc. Of course my tune is going to change the more information I learn. Again I know the film industry, sorry for using lingo that is hard for you to understand. No need to be mad bro trying to take a guessing cheap shot, you just look desperate. Again, I could care less if you delete it, just if you're going too, make sure your reasons follow Wikipedia guidelines and not personal ones. -- Vorspire ( talk) 15:53, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

• Delete. I wrote the PROD that is quoted in the nomination above, and I substantially stand by what I wrote there. The dead links and "references" that didn't even mention Jordon Hodges have been removed, but much of what we have as references is local coverage of a "Gosh, someone from round here is making films: everyone round here will want to know about that" nature, and other references are pages which barely mention Hodges, including at least one that merely gives his name in credits. There is absolutely nothing at all that suggests that he satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. KonstantineUO tells us that we can see from watching the trailers that "they are major films". I am not at all sure how it is possible to tell that something is a "major film" by watching a trailer: I should have thought that all one can tell from a trailer is what the film company wants us to think about it. KonstantineUO also tells us "If you google anyone of those films you will find a whole heck of a lot". Well, needless to say, I have Googled all of them, and what I found may or may not be considered to be "a whole heck of a lot", but it certainly is not a whole heck of a lot of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. For example, the first page of Google hits for "American Scream" consisted of IMDb, the Wikipedia article, Rottentomatoes, a trailer on YouTube, chillertv, another trailer (or more likely the same one again uploaded to a different site - I haven't checked because it makes no difference), theamericanscreammovie.com, FaceBook, movieweb, and an Amazon page selling the movie. By no stretch of the imagination do we have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In fact, I'm not sure that we have any coverage in reliable independent sources. Essentially similar results came for the other films (For Fraternity House a little care is needed, as just "Fraternity House" produces whole loads of hits nothing to do with the film, but "Fraternity House" "Jordon Hodges" gives results similar to those I have described.) Of course, I know that this is only of secondary relevance, as we need coverage of Hodges himself, not just of his films, but I am mentioning it in answer to KonstantineUO's. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

JamesBWatson, your above statement mate... The movie is not called American Scream, It's called American Scream King, and of course it's going to consist of IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. But you failed to look at the actual pages sources. Like here: [30] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest websites on the planet. The Ain't It Cool News source I just mentioned is better than being sourced from Rolling Stone Magazine in the film world, along with many other articles, Hodges is even in a 7 page magazine spread in Portfolio Fusion Magazine in one issue, and if you even go to their website you will see Hodges picture on the COVER of their Actor/Director issue (scroll down the right) [31] - Now this magazine I do not know how notable it is, it's not Rolling Stone, but you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover. I understand that might not be a proper source, just can brew in the common sense equation. If that's not notable, then it's time for me to start trying to remove the countless sites on Wikipedia of people less notable than Hodges. I can get 90k+ edits like yourself and we can argue discussions everywhere. Vorspire ( talk) 15:07, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

Thanks a lot for correcting my mistake over the title of the film. I have now repeated my Google search, using "American Scream King". Results were essentially similar, except that, together with IMDb, YouTube, and so on, I also found links to things like thepiratebay and other sites offering the film for download. Being "one of the biggest websites on the planet" does not mean that a site is a guarantee of notability. Wikipedia, Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are four of the biggest sites on the planet (I don't know, but my guess is that they are all far bigger than "Ain't it Cool News") but inclusion in any of them is no reliable indication of notability. In fact, being a very big site is often achieved by being indiscriminate, and willing to include anything: that is certainly why Google, FaceBook, and Twitter are so big. I also see with interest that the Wikipedia article on Ain't It Cool News says that, among other things, it includes "gossip from anonymous and unverified sources". You say "you don't put non-notable people on your magazine cover", but that depends on the magazine: there are hundreds of minor publications that give prominent coverage to non-notable people. The magazine's web site says that it features, among others, "aspiring talents", and goes on to say "Our magazine provides a platform for an opportunity for individuals in the arts to advance, grow, and share inspirations". Maybe I'm wrong, but that reads to me like a marketing-professional's gobbledygook way of saying that they promote the careers of people who have not yet achieved great notability. As for your offer to seek deletion of the countless Wikipedia articles about "people less notable than Hodges", please go ahead. Among the four million plus articles on English Wikipedia there are, unfortunately, innumerable articles which do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, and if you can help to reduce the number, that will be great. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Portfolio Fusion magazine invites people to submit their bios and stories for publication so I wouldn't lend a lot of weight for notability from that source. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

JamesBWatson, in your "professional opinion" what do you consider notable sources? Or is it based on the amount of notable sources that someone has? Since Ain't It Cool News isn't a notable source to you (Or is it? Do you just need more notable sources like it to make you happy?), that leaves nothing I can think of except for being on the cover of Time Magazine. I am guessing that it needs more sources of notable ones, but if that's not the case, what do you consider notable? For example, concerning Jordon Hodges, with my research he is on the brink of a lot of stuff with the movie Sand Castles, so I will want to re-add his page with more sources if this gets deleted (just to go back up a couple months later, but whatever if it makes you feel good). I am legitimately asking what keeps people from you to even consider deleting stuff. If Ain't It Cool News isn't notable, what about Indie Wire? What about Deadline Hollywood ? They are all in the same boat, and even the biggest stars on the planet have references from all 3 above. I honestly cannot think of more notable websites in the film industry more than those 3. Can you? Can you please give me some examples? I am trying to learn, but what it feels like is you marked it for deletion when the page was poorly done, now that the page is done better you cannot let it go from being deleting. Kind of "admitting you're wrong kind of thing." Again I am not trying to be dis-respectful towards you, that is simply how it feels so far. I would like to know what sites you consider without a doubt notable for someone like Jordon Hodges... I also am learning what notable is, here is a guy, who is obviously an actor/writer/producer with actual produced films (All "rules" aside you cannot be naive to think that as false... which even low budget films take at least a million dollars) and he some reason isn't considered notable? I mean if I look at everyone I personally know in my life, everyday people, he has far more "nobility" than most people. So where is the line drawn? And please don't copy and paste basic rules from Wiki, I want to know, in your 90k+ editing experience, who is notable? I have read the nobility rules myself, obviously something got lost in translation for me. Thank you. -- [User:Vorspire|Vorspire]] ( talk) 16:10, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

If this discussion results in a consensus to delete the article, I wouldn't recommend carrying out your threat to ignore that consensus and re-create the article. That kind of thing leads to being blocked from editing. 79.123.77.242 ( talk) 07:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It's no threat, and I don't agree with deleting it. If someone has a big movie come out and gets a lot of attention and there is much more notable articles about the person, then they should be added, which I will do. If I didn't do that, than it would be against everything Wikipedia stands for. I have a right to put information in as anyone. -- Vorspire ( talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

• Delete - No significant coverage beyond local papers. That is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

[32] A full article talking about American Scream King and Hodges from Ain't it Cool News one of the biggest and most notable movies websites on the planet. Vorspire ( talk) 15:48, 8 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

That article is about American Scream King, and mnetions Hodges in it, but not enough that is represents significant coverage. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Promotional, pure and simple, and i would give it a G11 except that an AfD will make it harder to re-create. The local sources are an excellent illustration of why we do not rely on them for notability , for film makers any more than authors. I don't think we have ever accepted AICN for notability , nor should we, considering it is explicitly devoted to rumors and gossip as much as actual information. No amount of coverage there makes for notability , again, because it's indiscriminate and highly subject to attempts at publicity. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

It's a rising filmmaker, of course it will be re-created by someone, unless he dies all of a sudden and stops making movies. I am confused people actually think / use Wikipedia for promotion and you guys actually think that. Some editors here seem very out of touch with today's real world in the professional field. I guess typing on Wiki all day can do that, but nobody would ever want a Wikipedia for promotion, that seems really dumb. Especially in a filmmakers / actors case, when IMDb is so much more important than Wikipedia. Everyone knows that. Even if they did want it for promotion, if they have the sources to back it up, then so be it. Or do you judge articles based on personal feelings or actual sources and information? I am new to Wikipedia, and I have learned a lot just by these discussions, so I do appreciate the patience of explaining stuff. I guess I would like to continue adding to Wikipedia, but this entire discussion has turned what is notable upside down. I knew who Jordon Hodges was before I started editing the Wiki, I saw his film Mary's Buttons at the Uptown Film Festival last year in Detroit. He was there to do a Q&A. I actually got to this area cause I was looking up Mary's Buttons to see if it had been released or any information about it. -- Vorspire ( talk) 15:48, 9 May 2013 (EST) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 05:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Impulse Black (  | 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 significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few local interest puff pieces. Prod removed by "an Executive of Oceanus Pictures" who owns one of producer/writer/star Jordon Hodges' pictures and who has stated that using Wikipedia "is part of a marketing game plan." [33] duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete per the general notability guidelines. I cannot find coverage in reliable sources about this topic. I see from Duffbeerforme's link that the involved executive hopes to screen this at a film festival. That is fine, and if that happens and coverage results, we can revisit having an article. Regardless, any future article needs to follow WP:NPOV. It is generally not a good idea for those involved with the film to work on the related article, most especially not the reception section. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If Hodges's article survives AfD it can redirect there, but considering that his coverage has been almost entirely and solely local, I'm not really holding out a lot of hope for that. There just hasn't been a depth of coverage for this film enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No evidence of notability, The cited sources are just local coverage of a "Gosh! someone from round here is in a film: people round here will be interested" nature. (NOTE: The article was created by a single purpose account, very nearly all of whose edits are about one actor and his films, and some or all of the other edits concern other actors who have worked for the same film company.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete No significant coverage beyond some local papers. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete It's obvious the movie is a real movie and many people have seen it (just based on the amount of message boards of people talking about it). But it seems they released the film more of a guerrilla style instead of having more notable sources talk about the film. -- Vorspire ( talk) 15:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply

what? You do realize you created this article... correct? Are you saying that you created this entire article, with lovely infobox, and you are now realizing it was entirely fluff? Was it handed to you in an email entitled, "Please post this on Wikipedia for us"? PeterWesco ( talk) 03:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete Seems like User:Vorspire has been blocked. Regarding the AFD does not meet WP:NFILM. This certainly is an odd AFD. Mkdw ^talk 08:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn ( non-admin closure) czar  ·  · 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC) reply

List of Australian composers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

A laundry list of composers with very unclear eligibility criteria (For instance, I wrote a few songs with my high school rock band, should I be included?), most of whom are not notable. Very few of these entries meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, and the list is utterly redundant to Category:Australian composers. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Laundry list can be fixed by removing non blue links as I've done with A. Inclustion to such a list should go with the Wikipedia norm. Include notable composers. Notable + independently WP:RS called a Australian composer = on the list. Lists can provide more info than cats can. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep A notable list of notable people and categories/lists go hand-in-hand, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Keep - the obvious thing to do is cull it down to blue links only, not AFD. This is an unfortunately low-quality nomination - David Gerard ( talk) 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm happy to explain to new and inexperienced editors in AfD discussions that lists and categories are not redundant to each other, but it's rather tiresome to have to explain it to an experienced administrator. Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Thanks for the good faith, gentlemen. It's obvious that consensus won't be reached here to delete, so I Withdraw the nomination. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 06:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC) reply

On The Verge (show) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Ten webcasts from Nov 11 - Nov 12; already covered in The Verge#On The Verge apart from the episode list; not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:WEB for a separate article; created by WP:SPA that has only ever written about Vox Media; promotional tone; barely referenced by WP:Primary sources; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum ( talk) 10:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum ( talk) 10:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar  ·  · 17:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC) reply