Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 November 3 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Keep !votes are not based in policy. — Darkwind ( talk) 06:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Pledger

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

Contested PROD. Article about an "Entrepreneur and former employee of the Missouri Republican Party" that claims notability as a sports blogger. I can find no significant coverage of the subject that could establish basic notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Noted Editor of the Facebook.com/PaulFinebaum page. Often cited on-air by Paul Finebaum. That's noteworthy sports blogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl pledger ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The qualifications for notability ask for someone to be famous and not irrelevant. Pledger(no relation) currently writes commentary read regularly by almost 15-thousand people as a service for the Paul Finebaum radio network and is a regular subject of conversation on air by both Finebaum and most of his callers(who make up the lion's share of the shows content). While certainly not the most famous and least irrelevant person, the subject meets the qualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl pledger ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, but I'll attest to his fame. I live in Tennessee and I hear him talked about on the radio all the time. FinebaumListener ( talk) 00
36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — User:FinebaumListener ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete From what I can see the references are also the external links to his facebook, twitter and personal websites. His claim to fame is helping someone run, unsuccessfully for office in his home town. Perhaps he will warrant a page in the future but not yet. PeteBaltar ( talk) 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

KEEP I've never heard of this guy, but I've heard of Paul Finebaum, the radio guy he does work for and is talked about, then he's noteworthy enough, as his show is huge on the radio in the south, and as much of a key part of his show that his listeners are, including this guy, he's got significant influence. Furthermore, his link to a fan page seems legit, and his 15-thousand followers there seem pretty interactive. I'd say enough people know him to for him to be regionally famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernSaint ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — SouthernSaint ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Just because a radio show you know of mentions him doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia entry, likewise we need verifiable evidence, not claims. WP:NRV PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia's inclusion criteria specifies that Pledger should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see no evidence of such coverage presented in the article, nor am I able to find any such coverage myself. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Roedy Green

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

Programmer of debatable notability, despite the glowing endorsement of this article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete From what I can saw his claim to fame is his dos application that has no sources beyond his own website, a self published book I cannot find anything on and that he was the second chair of a now defunct Gay and Lesbian Organization (GATE) from the 70's (again, no sources other than wikipedia and his site). I also noted that the founder and first chair of GATE isn't even named, he claims to be the second and have only held that role for a few months. Even if all he claims is true and it were referenced, it seems his accomplishments are fine, but not well known outside his own local circles as nothing is referenced. PeteBaltar ( talk) 01:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That he's a bit obscure is not reason to remove his article. Lack of proper citation, OTOH... - Denimadept ( talk) 01:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:SOURCE & WP:SPIP from this page and his other page it would seem he, or someone that visited his website made both these articles based off claims on his website, I can't find anything to satisfy various sections in the Verifiability rules. Having a website being proactive and writing batch files doesn't warrant a place on Wikipedia. DarExc ( talk) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep the article as it is was, is pretty much a disaster, but founding member / chairman of GATE is verified by U of Toronto Press book [1] and by U of British Colombia books [2], his GLBT rights manifesto is verified by U of Illinois Press book [3]. His Mindprod site is listed as a resource in many JAVA handbooks such as this one from Wiley [4] and the National Institute of Standards and Technology counts his JAVA Glossary as a source [5] while his joke "How to Write Unmaintainable Code" is frequently mentioned, such as this Addison Wesley textbook. [6]. Then we have him highlighted as taking some extreme positions and actions against whaling [7] A lot of mentions in a lot of different areas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Its funny how standards change, essentially the same article which got overwhelming "keep" back in 2006 was headed for the deletion bin today. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I also found mentions he was chairman of GATE for a few months, however, its founder and first chair isn't even named. Also Robert Douglas Cook, who would be the most notable of GATE members it would seem, only has a mention of his name and that he ran as the first openly gay MP on the GATE page. I don't see anything that Green personally accomplished in GATE from these sources nor is GATE itself a very large topic. Perhaps a mention of Green in the GATE article may be more appropriate if he's deserving? As to his JAVA glossary being referenced in the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 1998, the link it references is dead [8] and the references to his website and that joke as recommended reading in a couple old textbooks still fails WP:WHYN as that is not very significant IMHO, there are literally thousands of hand books on JAVA and many websites and their creators are referenced, that doesn't make them notable. PeteBaltar ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To address sources found by Red Pen: how many other founding members were there, and what notability criteria does that cover? We don't normally consider people notable for founding companies or NGOs. Having a book listed in a bibliography is not normally considered a sign of notability, unless the book was used in a classroom syllabus. The joke paper is potentially interesting but would need to see how many and types of sources. Working to save the whales is admirable, but not inherently notable, unless there was significant coverage in that aspect. I suspect the reason it was a Keep in 2006 the notability rules were less developed and so people operated on WP:SYSTEMIC bias a lot more than today - kept what they knew and liked. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources offered, especially 1 and 2, meet the requirement for multiple reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG as usually interpreted. Yes, yes, I get it, that these are not fabulous sources but I've lost count of the number of times I've !voted to delete on less but yet the consensus has been to keep. The claim that these sources don't meet our usual standards is believable only if you've never participated in many AfDs. Msnicki ( talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Founding an organization is not inherently notable. That's all these two sources reveal about Green. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You're wrong. Notability requires reliable independent sources talking about the subject. It does not require that they report that he has any particular credentials or achievements. The test of notability is that others independent of the subject took note, not that we agree he deserved it. Those sources exist for Mr. Green and that's all that matters. I suspect you may be confusing the point of WP:ANYBIO, which is that in some cases, e.g., a Nobel prize, we may accept credentials alone as sufficient in lieu of sources. Msnicki ( talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The two sources you mention have very brief passing mentions of him, 1 2 sentences with his opinions on the GATE organization quoted by the author followed by other peoples opinions who are also named; your second source is talking about someone else who remembers hearing him at a GATE meeting 2. I noticed as well he is not referenced as a founder of the organization, but as a founding member of a chapter of the organization for the city of Vancouver. I still believe this fails on WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are definitely passing mentions of his name among many others. I still think Delete and if warranted add his name to the GATE page, not sure on that one though. PeteBaltar ( talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a fair point of disagreement. It's always a judgment call whether the coverage in the sources offered is sufficient. I think it is based on having participated in countless AfDs where the consensus over my objections was to accept even less. But I respect your right to your differing opinion as correctly focusing on the quality and depth of the sources, not whether they describe sufficiently impressive accomplishments. Msnicki ( talk) 01:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The only reason I brought it up was because you had already recognized "these are not fabulous sources" which I could only interpret as a tactic admission they were trivial mentions (obviously) and so concluded you were going with a credential based argument under the special guidelines, since credentials are perfectly valid for certain occupations, such as heads of universities (for example WP:PROF). It's a quirk of the Notability guidelines that certain occupations get a free pass on credentials, and others don't. This is one that doesn't. That is all. Have a nice evening. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 02:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
No, I only addressing the quality of the sources, not what accomplishments they reported. We have often accepted less, usually over my objections. The prototypical example would be the author of a how-to book on some programming topic. Since lots of Wikipedians are programmers, there are always some who know the book and like it and that's all it takes, no other sources beyond completely trivial mentions needed. Msnicki ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I see your point here but in that case it would be more like saying someone briefly mentioned in that obscure programming book, because the author liked his website, deserves a Wikipage. A published author with various and significant mentions would be one step closer, he doesn't fit with either of these. I'm all for revisiting those authors too :D PeteBaltar ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Obscurity is irrelevant. Many articles here on WP are about obscure topics and supported only by obscure sources. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Of course a lot of topics and sources will be obscure. What matters is that the sources are reliable, secondary and independent. And to clarify, I had in mind authors of how-to programming books where often, the only source is the book itself, which is unquestionably WP:PRIMARY. But try explaining that to fans of that book. Msnicki ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, however, quality issue with the sources aside, not one, let alone a significant amount of them meet this line from WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Had this page not been created a while ago by him or a friend, no one would have thought him notable from reading any of these sources. PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
If it makes you feel better, it looks to me like I'm in the minority and the article is headed for delete. Msnicki ( talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Hehe, no, I'm just trying to convince you based on how I read into the rules but I'm just as open to you changing my mind by pointing out something I could be missing, no hard feelings mate. PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete I've looked through this and am tending to side with removal. Are there any better quality sources or is there a source where he is more than a brief mention? I'm just trying to see the notability here, which might still be there but the referencing doesn't justify that yet. If he were really notable one would think a unknown book would be eager to give him more than a sentence if they spoke with him but they didn't and they were only interested in his memory of that time, not him. As to the previous AfD I cannot imagine why they all voted keep, I looked at what was there prior to TheRedPenOfDoom editing it and it was not sourced and very poorly written. Kudos to TheRedPenOfDoom on finding these sources, maybe you can find something more significant to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? TomKoenig ( talk) 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Does writing a publication that helps to institutionalize and codify the "discrete signals" used for cruising for public sex count as a noteworthy achievement? [9] ? (the source is from google scholar, but I am not sure it qualifies as a reliable source)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
He didn't write this, he is referenced in it briefly as the author discovered the essay he wrote and she even mentions she didn't read it until she finished her paper, it just looks like more of what we already have, an obscure source with a brief mention of this person. PeteBaltar ( talk) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
page 14: " Cruising , including sex in parks and washrooms are a part of the culture of the West End which has its own etiquette based on discrete signals (Bouthillette 70). Green and Fairclough helped to institutionalize this conduct, in particular when in washrooms. " it probably has something in there about the wide stance -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
No, that is not a reliable source. To be considered reliable, it must a source with a reputation for editorial control, accuracy and fact-checking. For an academic paper, that typically means publication in peer-reviewed journal. That's not what we have here. Msnicki ( talk) 03:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Divernon High School

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

Article has few sources (~10, due to the fact that it isn't an organization any more. Jakeable ( talk) 21:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Divernon High School reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented. Beyond that, by longstanding consensus at AfD, High Schools of verified existence are presumed to be notable; whether they still exist is neither here nor there so long as they did exist. Carrite ( talk) 06:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep What Cullen said! John from Idegon ( talk) 05:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not again. By long precedent, secondary schools articles are invariably kept. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. This is an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Jace Daniels

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

Appears to fail WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet NGRIDIRON, NCOLLATH, or GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 22:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete normally Division II athletes don't generate enough press to meet WP:GNG, and that is even less likely with an offensive lineman. I don't see an exception here. The bulk of coverage that I can find seems to be around his high school playing days in local papers that happen to have archives online. Subject clearly fails WP:NGRIDIRON. I can find no notability measure to keep this article at this time.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Metodija Stepanovski

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

Though the article might technically meet WP:NSPORT because of two appearances in the Greek top flight almost ten years ago (which are only confirmed by transfermarkt, an unreliable source), the article clearly fails WP:GNG that even if it does meet WP:NSPORT it falls under the part of that guideline that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis theirs). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per GS, whilst there is scope for young players to be given some grace if it seems reasonable they will keep playing, this guy is 30. Seems highliy unlikely he will achieve much more that would fulfil NFOOTY, let alone GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 12:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, WP:GNG failure, as GS mentioned as well, there is precedent to delete despite a bare passing of WP:NFOOTBALL, in cases where GNG is not met. I believe this is the case here. C 679 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Abundance (programming language)

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

There are no references other than an old article in Byte Magazine which was a self submitted article by the author, the claims put in the article have had no references despite a request for them nearly 3 years prior. PeteBaltar ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

"was a self submitted article by the author..." Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article?" Sorry, it was authored by the author of the "Abundance Language" Roedy Green, he submitted an article to "byte magazine" about the language he was allegedly working on, there are no other references to it or its use anywhere else I can find other than his own writings in that article and his blog. PeteBaltar ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would point out that being publised by Byte, a very reliable source indeed, even if writen by the creator of the language, takes this out of the self-published category, However, I am not sure if a single published reference is sufficient. DES (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
While it takes it out of "self published", it doesn't make Green writing about Green's program any more "independent". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Green wasn't independant of course, but Byte surely was. If we assume that Byte's editorial staff passed the article, then I think we can consider this "coverage in an independent source". Whether it is enough coverage is still a question. DES (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:NRV & WP:SELFPUB. I searched for a bunch of different keyword combinations in google and could only come up with notes from mindprod.com which is the application writers home page. It doesn't appear to be a programming language but rather a simple dos application that he stopped updating and lost the notes/installtion for three decased ago, he also mentions someone [NASA] told him that NASA cannibalized his code, that's as much as I can find about the application, him and NASA (self published reference to nasa @ http://mindprod.com/precis/ab.txt) DarExc ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've searched, and come up with nothing beyond Green's own blog [10] - where he remarks that "I have left this tombstone entry for historical interest". Perhaps sadly, history seems to have taken little or no interest at all - and without independent sources, neither will Wikipedia. Self-promotion, even in Byte magazine, cannot substitute for demonstrable notability from independent sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Apparently too obscure to be remembered by anyone but the author. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Without reliable secondary sources it does not pass WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If no one, as a result of three deletion discussions, has found any citations to prevent further deletion proposals, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that such citations simply don't exist, and this isn't a notable subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As so eloquently stated by User:John Broughton. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Dennis Debbarma

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious problems with meeting any of the notability guidelines. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only the barest assertion of notability to avoid an A7 speedy. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete easy delete, unreliable sources, not notable, looks like a self made page WP:SOURCES TomKoenig ( talk) 02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Bleach (anime)

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

There was a decision at Talk:Bleach (anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) as well as at Wikipedia talk:MOSAM#Bleach break that opposed the creation of this page as separate from Bleach (manga) per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK but ChrisGualtieri has just gone ahead and gone against consensus to restore the page based on a single complaint made by Niemti at Talk:Ghost in the Shell. This article is superfluous to the coverage at Bleach (manga), in in direct violation of the guidelines set forth at WP:MOSAM, and is bordering on WP:POINT because he is using an AFD that closed as no consensus (see WP:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)) as the basis for his decision that the article should go forth as he and only he plans and constantly demands that discussions regarding redirecting/merging be done at AFD rather than article talk pages by citing WP:BLAR. — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Rather than respond to his rudeness, this is a simple matter. First of all, MOSAM cannot institute its own notability guidelines as per the RFC. [11] Secondly, MOSAM doesn't say anything ABOUT this and it should not because WP:POLICY limits it to being a "manual of style". I think over 40+ references and many worldwide releases is presumption that the anime adaptation which contains a lot of original material is worthy of its own stand alone page. And I think the contentious nature of the repeated blank and redirect is clear that it goes to AFD under WP:BLAR and having it be held for the mediation which Ryulong dropped out of is not a resolution. This article can stand on N/GNG and WP:SS including both splitting and detail clauses. Ryulong wants this article to be non-existant and clearly there is more than enough information and references. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion reason. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Its notability cannot be adequately distinguished from the originating manga. Both are notable as a unit rather than notable separately. This split goes against consensuses formed on the two pages I stated. You cannot keep splitting pages on the basis that "it meets GNG" because all of your references that you find are simply a western view point that overly inflates the presence of the anime version rather than the manga because for whatever stupid reason the manga is always more popular in Japan and the anime is always more popular in foreign territories. That is why WP:MOSAM suggests that pages be about both forms the media takes. It cannot forbid the creation of such pages, but the fact that a bunch of editors already decided that Bleach (anime) was entirely superfluous to Bleach (manga) and there is no need to completely separate the topics because they are so heavily intertwined as it is should be the selling point as to why you should have not recreated this page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    And you should stop using WP:BLAR to completely disregard WP:MERGE.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    MOSAM does not say that though and it is not official and it cannot comment on notability per the two RFCs. [12] [13] ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Stop saying it's not official because it gets in your way.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Bleach (manga), I saw no consensus for a split off here so we should form one on the respectable talk page not bring things like this to AfD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    At 28kb WP:SPLIT suggests it and the adaptation is completely different. Perhaps you could state why the article should be merged instead of complaining about discussion pre-split. Stick to the content matter please. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Plot is identical. Cast and characters are identical. Discussion is identical. As I said above, the only reason there are any references critically discussing the anime is because it is exported faster and is the more popular form in Western consumption.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Chris I am just saying we should have a consensus in place first, this is contested so what will it hurt to have input from the community on the matter? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't merge The plot section contains two paragraphs about two different original arcs not found in the manga. The duplicate parts should be shortened, just link to the manga plot in its article. Voice cast, Production, Music, Episodes, Release, International releases, and Reception sections are all content not connected to the manga at all. So most of the article is about the anime not the manga. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the anime on its own, so it passes all notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Does description of the filler arcs really mean the anime and the manga are different though? Voice cast is what List of Bleach characters is for. Music and episodes are covered on the List of Bleach episodes articles. And Bleach (manga) was originally about both the manga and the anime. Just because the article is disambiguated as "manga" because Bleach is something that isn't a work of fiction to begin with should not be a valid reason to split an article off that would be so difficult to curate simultaneously, which is basically the only reason WP:ANIME editors came together to form WP:MOSAM and the bit of the guideline that stated "it's not a good idea to have separate articles on the anime and the manga".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Bleach (manga) should be about the franchise itself, since it has a lot of information not just related to the manga: Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other. And what is listed there about the anime, doesn't show the reception just the anime got, or other valid information found in this article. Dream Focus 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    It's not a franchise. It's a manga that has an anime adaptation that has films and video game adaptations. It being a franchise is an invention on Wikipedia. Tite Kubo's Bleach has never once as far as I am aware been referred to as a "franchise" up until you saying it is one right now. And the only reason Bleach (manga) doesn't show reception of the anime is because ChrisGualtieri deleted the section from the page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Bleach is a franchise. Look it up in a dictionary. It is a media franchise that extends to books, anime, movies, novels, soundtracks, dramas, video games, toys and more. Not sure why you contest that. Though I'd like to point out that the anime reception should be much smaller and the movies and other deals should be on the franchise page, or if it becomes a manga centric page - removed. Either way this has no bearing on the current AFD. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Again with this franchise page nonsense. These do not work for anime and manga. And really the only place reception of the movies should be on the articles for the movies themselves, if they existed. Otherwise discussion of the animated movies should be in the same location as discussion of the animated television series because of same cast, same etc.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Franchise. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Your extreme views aside; they clearly work for Harry Potter, Star Wars and countless others. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Harry Potter is a sequence of 7 books and 8 movies and god knows what else. Star Wars is two trilogies of movies and a whole bunch of other stuff. Bleach is a still published manga, 300 anime episodes based on that manga, and a bunch of films that have nothing to do with either. The way Japan treats things is different from how Hollywood does and you should not use the same terminology.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    They are treated the same way. Bleach is a manga, Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other stuff, including toys. American comic books get turned into cartoons, movies, games, toys, and whatnot, in the same way. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles uses the word "franchise" twice in the opening paragraph. So why would you not use that terminology? Dream Focus 18:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Because I don't think it works in the situation of manga and anime. A franchise page should be created when the subject has existed for such a long time that discussion of the whole gets in the way of discussion of its disparate parts. This has not, in my opinion, happened for various anime and manga. You can discuss the anime adaptation of Bleach alongside the original manga easily. All you have to do is say "this only happened in the anime" for shit like the Bount arc or the Captain Amagai arc and you say the anime is over and discuss the Wanderreich arc as part of the manga.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 18:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Can you stop calling things "shit" and such just because you do not like it? Your enforcement of your personal views at any cost only results in highly confusing and sparsely written pages that do not even cover the adaptations or original content. You believe that the cast and characters are useless, but these are needed for the GA. Articles must have a proper level of self contained context for their topic and scattering it to the four winds only makes readers who want to access that information unable to do so. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    When have I ever said I didn't like it? And there has never been this call for a separate page on the anime version of Bleach until you decided it was the best idea since sliced bread. And you are the one "scattering it to the four winds" by taking all of the anime information off of the main Bleach page. List articles have always existed so I don't know why you think that's "scattering it".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as an unnecessary content fork. The differences are adequately covered by List of Bleach episodes and the sixteen season lists. The parent article isn't long enough to justify a split either. — Xezbeth ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No reason to merge or delete this article. It is plenty enough notable and worthy on its own. Technical 13 ( talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per previous talk page consensus, and as an unnecessary content fork of a topic that can adequately be addressed in a single article.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • By the way, WP:SPLIT makes it clear that the article's size is not a justification for splitting in this case, as anything below 40 kB would fall under "length alone does not justify division" by following the rule of thumb provided in that page. An article with just 27 kB of readable prose is not long by any standards.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • What talk page consensus? The only thing that was done was edit warring to remove the page and the article is roughly 40kb as it stands right now. And half the references and a ton of content isn't even included yet! Can we please focus on why the anime is not suitable for its own stand alone article? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • The size guidelines refer to the prose size and not to the size of the article's wikicode, which is not considered to be a good measure of the overall length. The pre-split prose size of the Bleach article was just 27 kB, which is well short of the 50 that would make a split advisable. It could be possible that, since you plan to add lots of content, it might be better to split the article in the future, but for now we're not really close to that point.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you for clarifying that. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but I will accept it. I must ask about the specific focus being the topic of the anime and how that proper coverage of either the manga or the anime would result in a very long and complex article. More than half the article would not be applicable to the other half if combined and if a movie can get its own article, why not a 100+ hour long series? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Since you revealed this Underlying lk, ChrisGualtieri has been bloating the article with more content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
              • You mean expanding the article with more valid content? Dream Focus 07:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                • No, I don't think I wrote that at all, Dream Focus.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                  • I've just pulled more sources that I have access to. Like the "Behind the Scenes" documentary, and some academic works. I have added a good amount of necessary Kubo information and added some casting and analysis of the characters. I disagree with Ryulong's removal of the content covering Kubo's concept, design and name of the series. Especially while I am in the process of better organizing and filling in the gaps. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                    • That information concerns the manga and not the anime. If this was a unified manga/anime article it might be valid to cover it, but since you demand that it's an anime only article it doesn't have a place.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If ChrisGualtieri can add new material supported by reliable sources to the new anime article, and by doing so he expands it enough to warrant a split of the main article, it would be a happy outcome for both parties IMO. But neither does this mean that it should be expanded just for the sake of keeping them separate: this for example, is clearly a list disguised as prose.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
It wouldn't really be a happy outcome because he still acted against consensus to produce a page that several people previously said he should not have. The fact that he has to spend 12000 characters describing the music and soundtracks, even with half of it in a table, really shows how much padding and bloating he is adding to the article to support its splitting.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Repeated blank and redirecting, personal attacks and robbing it of the AFD to push this consensus is silly. Not to mention the mediation matter needed all conflicts to end and this was included. Anyways, what's done is done and the community gets to decide. I'll clean up the soundtrack section. I didn't realize it was so unwieldy in that format. Ryulong, keep attacking me and calling my additions "bloating" and I'll bring it to Arb Com immediately. I see no reason that its themes, production or music should be removed. You want this article to fail. And that's bad faith. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You spent thousands of characters saying how many tracks were on each of the 4 OST disks and made a massive paragraph out of the character song albums. That's padding. And, all I did was move content to Music of Bleach because it's a better location for all of it than having a giant table on the article describing the same content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I did not spend "thousands of characters" on how many tracks. You have once again removed an entire section that you should not have. It needs to be covered on this article and not "mained" out to somewhere else. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 11:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The paragraph about the 4 soundtrack volumes is massive. And you of all people are mad at me for splitting off an article?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
So... WP:POINT, then? 192.251.134.5 ( talk) 14:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You know, I had not realized that.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 15:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but can no one discuss the merits of the actual issue instead of piling on this "no consensus to first split"? We have 87 sources and 111 original episodes worth of content not found in the manga and not done by Kubo. Now I'm not sure why Ryulong is removing the cast information, but I'm not seeing a merge rationale and its more fury over the fact that an RFC over its split wasn't made. Though no one seems to be questioning notability or relevancy for the adaptation. The movies are less than 1/200th as long yet something larger than the original page can't stay? Sorta seems off. An all-in-one would completely ruin both pages. I've tested it. Check for yourself if your so inclined. We can discuss the "merge" issue after this AFD closes as "keep, discuss merge", but merging the two would put it back to being splittable under size. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The issue still somewhat stands that anything you say about the anime is pretty much what you can say about the manga and vice versa. Unless there are sources that commend the animation or that relate solely to the storylines that occur only within the anime (or its dub) then there's no reason to really differentiate between reception of the two media.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But we have that. And while the reception is one thing, what about the original arcs? What of the veteran cast and their roles? Why not be specific for articles that are specific? If you honestly believe a 150kb+ article covering the aspects of the anime and the manga and everything else is necessary - then say so. What I foresee is yet more pruning and cutting of content. At such sizes, it is not simple to navigate or comprehend. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm failing to see where this doesn't fall under WP:SPINOFF. Its WAY better sourced that most "List of X characters" that are kept around here (which, to be clear I don't actually object to either). 192.251.134.5 ( talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete along with every other silly article about cartoons and comic books. I don't understand what this junk is doing on WP at all, can someone explain to me why you have to establish notability for university professors or orchestral conductors for instance but childish stuff like this gets articles? Smeat75 ( talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    WP:I don't like it isn't a valid reason to delete something. Wikipedia is mostly popular culture items, and always has been. These are the types of pages that most people visit, and take time to edit and fuss about. Destroying this sort of article won't make the other articles improve any. Dream Focus 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    I do not believe that your comments are helpful to this or any situation, Smeat75. Also, judging by the nearly two hundred combined sources at Bleach (manga) and Bleach (anime) that notability has been established per WP:N.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unambiguous advertising (G11). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Radio HoiChoi

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

Author uses terms like "our", implying that they are affiliated with the radio program. Also it's an internet radio show... How well known is it? teratogen ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete. This does not belong at AFD. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as spam. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you. teratogen ( talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against merge or redirect if consensus develops that way. Mojo Hand ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Acceptance Speech (Dance Gavin Dance album)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS. It may do in the future, so I think it may benefit from being userfied. I did attempt to redirect it to band's article as a possible search term, but this was reverted. I think redirection to Dance Gavin Dance#Second Departure of Jonny Craig and Acceptance Speech (2012–present) or deletion are both valid outcomes. Boleyn ( talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

It debuted at 42 on the Billboard 200, I think that makes it significant enough to remain. vbooy57 ( talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That's a good point. On top of that, I think once it gets some references and more content on reception and reviews, it'll be fine. Give it time. WeinribZ, yo. ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep per vbooy57. Charting on the Billboard 200 definitely makes it meet WP:NALBUMS. It just needs more material, which will come in time. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Dance Gavin Dance. How does charting on the Billboard 200 make it meet notablity requirements for albums? Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable. That info can be noted in the main article. It can always be recreated at a later date (and even kept before the end of this discussion) pending "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The chart placements suggest the album may be notable, and there are two staff reviews at Sputnikmusic, which WikiProject Albums considers reliable, but I'm not seeing much else in terms of significant coverage.  Gong  show 18:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge to Dance Gavin Dance. Personally I don't feel that there is enough here for a standalone article, but the content should either be kept or merged to the band article. I don't see any benefit to the project from deleting this. -- Michig ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: there are reviews. Tezero ( talk) 05:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Surf Style

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

Business that doesn't meet our notability standards, WP:CORP. Number of stores does not confer notability (there are similar surf shop chains all up and down the Gulf Coast). NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The number of stores certainly contribute to notability. And this is not just another surf shop chain. It's been covered by Frommers as a tourist destination for including an indoor surfing facility at its Clearwater Beach store, its been covered for its role in redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, its been covered for trademark disputes and advertising, its been covered in relation to its purchase and demolition of a historic dinner club in Biloxi, its been noted in relation to a notable model/ stripper etc. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 11:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Here's a story from a couple weeks ago about the company's partnership with Guy Harvey. Not sure what the issue is here, plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as I noted above. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 13:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Galinha Pintadinha

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

Notability not established. The only source is the primary "official website" source. Article is three sentences long and contains questionable promotional language, "The songs...are getting millions of downloads on YouTube" No reliable secondary sources provided. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Soophie Nun Squad

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

Article fails to substantiate a claim of notability. More than seven years after creation it still has no citations in it. A Google search turns up Myspace and Facebook pages (and this Wikipedia article) but little else in terms of independent reliable third-party sources. None of the record labels mentioned has yet acquired its own page. The talk page emphasizes the outsider nature of the band, but this cannot be the sole basis of an entire Wikipedia article. A simple lack of verifiable non-trivial evidence of notability means the article should be deleted. KDS4444 Talk 07:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

(Although they DO have a one-line entry at Urbandictionary.com: "absolutly the GREATEST band ever/ i met the members of soophie nun squad (and their hot)" KDS4444 Talk 07:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I believe that Soophie Nun Squad passes the #7 on WP:Band. They were very prominent in the Little Rock music scene in the 90s and 00s. They play a prominent roll in the documentary Towncraft that documents that period of Little Rock music history.
I was able to find a few more sources, let me know if these are viable.
I would also like to point out that a simple Google search brings up way more than you claim. They were a widely known band that toured extensively and has sold a lot of records, albeit independently, as evidenced by the sheer volume of sites with Soophie merchandise.

-- The_stuart ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with these two final sources is that neither of them provides a name of an actual author. When no author is provided, questions of reliability and independence get raised. Can you find any articles that have a named author? That would go a long way towards establishing notability. Also: the claim to satisfy #7 of WP:BAND still requires that the information be verifiable— that is what I have not been able to establish. Next: I do not think (I may be wrong here) that appearing in a documentary can be considered evidence of notability. If I am wrong on that point, I would appreciate being shown some examples to the contrary. Finally: I did not mean to suggest that a Google search does not produce many, many hits on the name of this band— it produces thousands. What I meant was that none of the results I found through a Google search appeared to constitute reliable independent secondary sources of information. Sheer volume does not equate to notability. KDS4444 Talk 00:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Motion comic. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Visioncomic

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

Contested PROD, removed without comment. Reason was Uncited original research, though I have corrected a typo in it! Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiny Toon Adventures characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Montana Max

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 16:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 W.I.T.C.H. characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Will Vandom

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Integral City

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

Article on a non-notable pseudoscientific theory that's effectively being used to promote the theory. All of the citations are to the originator's own publications. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 20:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK multiple book reviews. The article as nominated was in bad shape. I've refactored it as a book article and removed most of the content which was poorly formatted and incomprehensible. Added book reviews and citations. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Green Cardamom's good work in cleaning up this article and adding independent reliable sources has both shown the topic to be notable and has fixed the severe problems with the article. Nicely done. -- Mark viking ( talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tenjho Tenge characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Kōji Sagara

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied per CSD G3 (hoax). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Tekken: Dark Kontrol

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

Delete, all references are for wikipedia, no outside resources to verify information Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is the game a hoax altogether? If it is, it could just be speedy deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it as a hoax. I can't find anything to verify that a game by this name is being planned at all and the only hits are this article and some mirrors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Mary Jo Buttafuoco

Mary Jo Buttafuoco (  | 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:BLP1E. Unlike Joey Buttafuoco or Amy Fisher, she had no media appearances after the fact and was quickly forgotten. Merge to one of those two articles or delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Partial merge to Joey Buttafuoco. Since her book has got significant media coverage [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] you could argue she meets WP:WRITER. But I still think that since the book is about her husband, her marriage, and the Amy Fisher affair, and she only wrote it and got it published and got any media coverage because of those factors, it makes sense to merge with her husband's article where the whole thing can be discussed in one. A merge is also justified by the fact that the "Aftermath" section is the same in both her and her husband's articles, so you really just need to merge the section about her book. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Her book and motivational career have been marginally notable, she has made media appearances on shows such as Howard Stern and The View to promote them. She is mostly notable for the Amy Fisher incident, but perhaps her work in recent years is notable enough to meet the requirements. LM2000 ( talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. In this case WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because at least two of the three conditions are not met. 1. Sources cover her beyond the event, she is a published author and speaker, she has become a public figure over the long term. 2. She is no longer a low profile figure (a requirement of BLP1E). She may have been at the time of the event, but she capitalized on it and consciously chose to become a public figure by publishing books, going on TV, public speaking and so on. She could have chosen to remain private, which BLP1E is designed to protect, but in this case she became a long-term public figure by her own choice to write a book and appear on TV. Low profile figures don't have PR agents. Also the writing of the book didn't just happen automatically, she did it as a separate accomplishment from the initial event, they are not the same thing from a notability standpoint (one is AUTHOR, the other is VICTIM). -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Green Cardamom. She's notable beyond the obvious single event. There is copious coverage over her post-2000; certainly, there's enough to complete an article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable public figure, per above. Carrite ( talk) 06:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Peyton Meyer

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR. To date he has only had a single, very minor role (3 episodes) as a character in one series, and appeared in another program as himself. WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but, to date, he hasn't come close to that. Nor does he have a fanbase. According to the article he will be a main character in a series to be aired sometime in 2014 but that's a little WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't establish notability now. In the event that he becomes notable as a result of the future role then the article can be recreated when the time is appropriate. AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For now, currently a stock player in the Disney sitcom repertory, and yes, likely to become more in GMW, but for now an article without much to go on. Another point; 'love interest' should never be used in an article describing a tween show. Nate • ( chatter) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now - TBA Disney star for now with no major role in either series it seems yet so I can't even begin to recommend redirecting. Google News and other searches provided pretty much the same, news articles (with some not-so-reliable or significant blogs) about the series with mentions in sentences or paragraphs about him but nothing solid yet. It could be taken as a good sign that there's some good coverage now but it's still a crystal ball. No prejudice, as always, towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, per the above - subject to date does not yet meet WP:ENT. Redirects are cheap and I guess I would not be opposed to one since there is some coverage for his role on the upcoming Girl Meets World show, but I agree that it's still rather crystallball-ish.  Gong  show 07:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Yaqoobi

Mohammad Yaqoobi (  | 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 cleric. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:GNG. Tanbircdq ( talk) 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Not only is he a Grand Ayatollah, and therefore a very senior cleric, but he is also the head of a significant political party in Iraq. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is one of the biggest Shia scholars in Iraq with great influence. Yes, he has created controversy, and many disagree with him, not just Sunni scholars, but even inside Sia Islam where he belongs. But because of that, all the more reason to keep the article. Admittedly a massive edit was unwarranted changing the balance of the article. But that would be a call to keep and edit the content, rather than call for the deletion of the page. werldwayd ( talk) 19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant religious and political figure. The large first person voice section could do with being pruned though. AllyD ( talk) 20:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Of course he's notable as a Grand Ayatollah if nothing else. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - He's a Grand Ayatollah ...... Doesn't get more notable than that.
→Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 17:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013) - Jamaica

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013) - Jamaica (  | 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 school competition. Rejected CSD A10 as substantially larger than this article already at AfD. Contravenes WP:NSEASONS as this is not a top professional league. Competition is merely a school competition and not even a national one.Also contravenes WP:NOTSTATS due to lack of significant sources prose. Fenix down ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator had recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll Lead You Home

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 08:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn Thanks for the grat research and improvement made, Michig. Boleyn ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Second-level ISP

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

Article is poorly written and reads like an advertisement. Tags indicate these issues have existed for years. A Google search for the term "second level ISP" gives this article as the first result, and many other relevant results copy directly from the article. Novusuna ( talk) 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Article is defiantly writtin like a advertisement but i do feel there is cause for a deletion for now until it can be rewriting and put in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia Staffwaterboy Critique Me 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could go either way on this. Either delete it, or merge with Anonymous web browsing and redirect. I agree that a lot of the content is poorly written and/or unsourced. The biggest problem I have with it though, is that for the most part, the term doesn't seem to exist outside of this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. (Google search [35]). If we merge and redirect, there are probably bits and pieces of this article that should/could be mentioned in Anonymous web browsing. —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete This style of article really does not fit wikipedia. its a sort of essay/multiple advertisement/howto thing.

MopSeeker ( talk) 14:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - This is either WP:OR or it's a copyvio that we can't find any more because the article has been around long enough to be copied/indexed more than the original. Either way, it's not encyclopedic. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Tim Bilecki

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

Promotional article that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 07:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete G11 - article is clearly intended as an advertisement for the law agency and promotion for his writing work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I went through each source. Many can be discarded as primary sources or no mentions of Bilecki at all. Some are very trivial mentions of a single quote buried in the article. A couple quote him a bunch of times. However in these, they are about court cases and clients, which is normal lawyer activity, like being a journalist on TV, it's part of the job be seen publicly. Need to see more in depth coverage about the lawyer. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Chris Joss

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

Unsourced BLP article of a French musician. Searches reveal not much in the way of sources except releases from the musician and his label, a few discussion board posts and the like, but nothing that would be considered an WP:RS. There is a slight argument that he may just meet criteria #10 of WP:MUSIC due to having some incidental music used in notable films, but that same guideline suggests that the article should be redirected if that's the only credible claim to notability. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick search found a bio and several reviews from Allmusic ( [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]), coverage in the book Film and Television Scores, 1950-1979: A Critical Survey by Genre ( [41]), a review in CMJ New Music Report ( [42]), several CMJ charts (e.g. [43], [44] - several more on GBooks), and coverage in Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet ( [45]). I suspect that a more thorough search would find more. -- Michig ( talk) 08:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO based on the sources listed above and others such as these [46] [47].  Gong  show 14:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Robert Andya

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

The subject of this article is not notable under Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline or as an athlete, specifically under the section High school and pre-high school athletes (the athlete's age is listed on the page, showing him to be of high school age). Related to athletes, this sportsperson has not competed in the Olympics, Youth Olympic Games, Pan American Games, skiing World Cup, World Championships, or the National Championships. A Wikipedia article's subject should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Related to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the sources listed in this article are not independent of the subject as they are mostly self published: blogs or profile pages for the athlete. Also, a Google search reveals no press articles to support the article. Further, a Proposed Deletion tag was added, endorsed, and removed from this article on 31 October/1 November; and relatedly, an article with a similar title, Robert andya, was deleted using Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 on 17 August 2013. While I admire this athlete's drive and accomplishments, he is not yet to the point in his career for a Wikipedia article. - tucoxn\ talk 06:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

!!!www.monsterarmy.com is the Monster Army Development Team Site. They and Section 0 Freeride(subsection of Monster Army) have provided the detailed career results for athlete Robert Andya!!! !!!I Darkstryker0 have done a personal interview with Robert Andya and have had all facts confirmed!!! This article should not be deleted due to the nature of the fact that the people nominating this page to be deleted do not have the knowledge I have gained through eye witness accounts and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstryker0 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Darkstryker, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the rule here is no original research. We can't base an article based on your own personal knowledge and research (or mine, for that matter). The material has to have been published somewhere; Wikipedia is not the publisher of first resort. There are plenty of places where you can share your knowledge about the subject - such as Facebook, or blogs - but Wikipedia is not one of them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • If I publish thye transcript of my articles that I have obtained and pages linking to official race results, can this page continue? I enjoy my research on Mr. Andya as I see him as the future of freeride skiing. This article can only go up from here I think

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstryker0 ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Adrián Sosa Nuez

Adrián Sosa Nuez (  | 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 real indication of notability or reliable references, written with a clear COI Jac16888 Talk 22:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Blogs, shop sites, self-publishing pages, nothing that is actually reliable as a references-- Jac16888 Talk 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Library of Congress, Google Books, Worldcat, Official national & internat. webs (three books)... enoughs sources, enough WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources in the article do not establish notability, and nothing better than these was found. -- Michig ( talk) 08:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • New sources addeds, you can look it. Is possible to buy (and to read) his books around the world. His first book is in international libraries, his second book is in all Spain and his third work is in Europe & North America (Canada even). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The fact that you can buy his books does not make him notable, none of the sources you have added can be considered reliable-- Jac16888 Talk 17:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
What's the minimum to consider an author how a writer with reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 17:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You need third party reliable sources that discuss the subject, not blogs, self-published releases and bookshops. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources-- Jac16888 Talk 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article have third party reliable sources.( Library of Congress index on "Artabán, el cuarto rey mago" , Google Books [48] ,News pages [49],Neutral pages [50],...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
LOC just proves he wrote a book, as does the Google books link, isladelecturas seems to be little more than a press release announcing a book and the fourth link just seems to be a list of places a book can be found-- Jac16888 Talk 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
He has wrote three books. With the first aprove, he is a writer already. The others books can´t be in libraries until some time after published. The necessary prove to the other works is that it stay in bookshop with a EAN (lawful & registered). The article never must not be deleted, but if it would be impossible, the minimum must be merged here [51] at "other version" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You're not getting it, anybody can write a book and pay for it to be published - this does not make a person notable, similarly the fact he wrote about an actual notable book does not itself make his book or himself notable-- Jac16888 Talk 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok. But is possible that these kind of books are in the Library of Congress? This kind of wiki publication could be interesting to the people, because is a XXI century version of an old book of Henry Van Dyke. Here WP:N no is the problem, the problem here is the culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 19:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keep and add to the "other versiones" of henry van dyke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.121.22.137 ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KeepNot enough reasons to be deleted(but not to merge). Large coverage as author, too much to be unremarkable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.171.5 ( talk) 17:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Bencherlite Talk 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

A book that never dies I

A book that never dies I (  | 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 book, actually a poem, that was just released today via "online magazines". It is by an non-notable author. Only ref in article gives one paragraph about the book and says it was released last February. Nothing says notable. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reference to an article by one Joseph Yaw Frimbong that predates this newly-published poem, article contributed by new editor User:Josephyaw who also contributed a speedy-deleted article on one J.Y.Frimpong - a slight hint of WP:COI. No evidence of attained notability. (Creative works don't qualify for CSD A7 but I wonder if this meets CSD G11 as promotional?) AllyD ( talk) 07:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything that would show that this is ultimately notable enough for its own article. The only source I found that looks relatively decent is this one, which is somewhat dodgy seeming. Even if we count it as a RS, it's not enough to keep an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I can't find any evidence that this is notable (hat-tip to User:AllyD for their research into the actions around this article). Ironholds ( talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Books on the radio

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

WP:CFORK of audiobook. "Books on radio" is not an established term is just another way of saying "audio book". We don't really differentiate if a book is read on radio vs audiobook, in fact many audiobooks are originally radio books and vice versa - they are all the same thing. Most "radio books" are categorized under Category:Audiobooks by title or series. This article looks like an attempt to create a list-article of books read on the BBC, mainly, which might be acceptable if it wasn't in the 1000s since it makes up the entire product catalog of AudioGO, the audiobook publisher of BBC productions. It's fine to discuss the topic in audiobook and radio drama. Also it's unsourced so a Keep vote would need to also establish using reliable sources that this is a notable topic separate from audiobook or radio drama. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Books read on BBC should be a sub section or indicator on Audio books, that is a better way to handle this. -- Nlfestival ( talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (See my remarks below) I see that this article has a long history, and it looks as though the primary intent was to identify radio programmes where book abridgements could be listened to. That is not what Wikipedia is for and there are now better ways of obtaining the information. Whatever the intention, the article lost its way because under Radio 4 Extra is listed a number of programmes that are not, and could never be confused with, serial book adaptations. Radio 4 Extra does have them, rebroadcast from the BBC archives, but these are not examples. Expanding Audiobooks and redirecting to there would seem to be the way to go because that article concentrates on the US experience and fails to make the point that in the UK and probably most of the world radio readings have been the main outlet historically and many releases in other media originate from that. There might be material enough for a proper history of the topic, and if so I might reconsider my vote, but there is little in the present article that should be kept so a merge does not seem appropriate. -- AJHingston ( talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Either merge with audiobooks or rename to List of BBC audiobooks. I agree with the nominator's FORK rationale, and if the list is kept as a list of BBC audiobooks, it should be titled as such. p b p 18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These are a specific class of audiobooks, those presented in narrated form on radio; up to now, almost all audiobooks are presented as physical recordings. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That is confusing the media with the product. For example there are no articles for books on CD-ROM, books on MP3, books on cassette tape, books on vinyl, etc.. the books on radio are exactly the same productions the BBC sells on MP3 and CD-ROM through AudioGO and Audible.com. The same exact production and product distributed concurrently via different media. They are simply audiobooks, no special "class" of audiobooks, just brand names ("BBC") and media distribution channels (radio, MP3, CD-ROM etc..). The old time radio productions are covered in radio drama and radio comedy. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If book readings are considered to be covered under radio drama and radio comedy then we do have a big categorisation problem. Every day the BBC has readings (by a single voice) of book abridgements. I have never thought of them, or heard them referred to, as radio drama. They are quite different in many ways and have been a major component in radio output from very early. Book readings do not need even to be of fiction, and on the BBC frequently are not. I must admit that I had been thinking of this article as being intended to be about readings, from the evidence of the article's history, but the title could encompass book dramatisation. Agreeing with Green Cardamom that we should not confuse medium with content, we do need to decide what content we are discussing and how best to cover it. Colonel Warden is quite right that something like the BBC's 1981 Lord of the Rings trilogy is a book dramatisation, but it is marketed in other forms as an audiobook. To avoid confusion I have decided to strike my vote above. It had not occurred to me until I saw Green Cardamon's remarks about 'old time radio productions' above that it might not have been appreciated by everyone just how much alive all this is (and BTW, the BBC re-broadcast Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' only the other day). If radio dramatisation is to be included then doing so in an article entitled audiobooks makes little sense. Indeed, there is a continuity with, say, Charles Dickens' stage readings of his books, and an article on book readings ought to to address it. After all, if it is content that matters whether readings were live (as early radio ones will have been) or recorded is irrelevant. We need to resolve this sensibly, and perhaps the answer would be to keep this article but recast, probably concentrating mainly on the BBC's output if they have been the major commissioner of this material in English. -- AJHingston ( talk) 11:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The BBC book readings are audiobooks. They are productions which are concurrently distributed through multiple channels: radio, AudioGO, Audible.com, Amazon.com (CD-ROM) etc.. the media these books are distributed on varies, but the product is the same. It's an audiobook. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But they are not radio drama, as you suggest above. There is not really any doubt as to notability here, the question is how best to cover it. If we take today's output of one of the BBC channels, Radio 4 as a typical example, that contains book readings and dramatised book adaptation as well as original drama. The title 'books on the radio' spans those. A case can indeed be made for radically recasting and probably retitling audiobooks to cover spoken performance of books in whatever medium, including stage, putting dramatised spoken performance in another article even though those may then be marketed as audiobooks, or many other permutations. As things stand, though, a simple redirect is not possible, nor is a merge because the present content is unsuitable. The audiobooks article is not about this at all, including the absurd statement that the first audiobook was made in 1969, ignoring radio altogether. -- AJHingston ( talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The books heard on BBC are not exclusive for or to radio, sorry. It is similar to documentaries, the BBC makes them and distributes on web, TV, movie theater and DVD. We don't differentiate between documentaries aired on TV and those on DVD, they are just documentaries regardless of the media. Some people never saw The Blue Planet on TV but they own the DVD and probably think of it as a DVD product. Likewise BBC audiobooks are distributed via CD-ROM and digital download through partners such as Audible.com, Amazon.com and others. The shows air on BBC for free since BBC like PBS is a public institution but that doesn't mean they are a special type of audiobook, they are indistinguishable from any other audiobook. The article audiobook says "An audiobook is a recording of a text being read". -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
It is true that we would not distinguish between the cinema, television and DVD release of the same film, but we do distinguish in other respects between media and between networks, so I am not sure your premise is correct. Remember that the BBC commissions material primarily for broadcast, and the book readings are not necessarily released in other media - that is subject to commercial and copyright considerations and historically the option would not even have been available. It is very different from the case of a DJ's playlist. The audiobooks article does not even mention radio, and to give it due weight would have to undergo major expansion and editing. It is that which worries me - such a change in scope should really be discussed on the audiobooks talk page, and a redirect there is not even on the cards at this point. The more I think about it an article rather more extensive than the present audiobooks one would be possible eventually on the subject of books on the radio (bearing in mind that straight readings and dramatisations are in scope). My inclination is to reduce the present article, if necessary to a stub, keep it, and let it develop from there. -- AJHingston ( talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, I was going to try and approach this from another angle and point out that we don't have articles on other generic radio topics like sports.. but in fact we have sports radio and indeed a whole Category:Radio formats including radio documentary -- so "books on the radio" is obviously a legitimate radio format genre next to these. The change of perspective came from looking at it from the POV of radio format genre instead of audiobook titles. The article should focus on the radio genre and less on listing audiobooks, except as part of retelling the genre's history. I think that will clear up the confusion. I've issued a Withdraw above however since others voted delete it will close normal procedure I believe. Content issues can be worked out separately from the AfD. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

FF Vinyl Records

FF Vinyl Records (  | 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 stand alone notability. References do not back FF Vinyl Records notability. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards delete - I have to say, at first glance, it looked like the article had alot of references despite that now alot of them seem to be dead even with searching archive.org. Detailed Google News searches including "Cardiff UK, "record label" and some of their clients provided nothing until my last search here (event listing, not very promising). The Guardian, The Telegraph and Daily Mail provided nothing as well. As I've mentioned, getting a good article on a record label is challenging sometimes because the record label hides more in the shadows behind the client or (2) there are mainly PR pieces. It doesn't even seem there's a website but this is probably due to the fact they are now a management company which actually tends to get lesser attention than record labels. Additionally, it doesn't seem they have a website even as a management company (at least, I can't find it). Doesn't seem to be much add to this article therefore I lean towards delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A defunct record company that publisher 36 records strikes me as NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Arkhitekton

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

Per previous WP:PROD. No reliable reference. ELEKHH T 02:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH T 02:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reliable etymological and legal references supplied, no "trolling please", theres no need to delete just because you don't like accuracy or builders, fell free to add what you think is accurate and please cite your references and evidence. Please be objective, there's nothing personally intended about historiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The only references in the article are to the Wikipedia article on Architecture. Wikipedia is not, ever, a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article. AllyD ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

hi thanks for your message, are you sure? why? ive seen much worse, I am not an editing expert I am waiting for someone experienced to add and reconfigure, give it some time and we'll chat in a few months, an encyclopedia does not have to be an award winning essay every time, I think you are omitting valuable data and need to keep up to date, I wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if obvious articles were constantly deleted, I'd buy a book encyclopedia instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 3 November 2013

That you've seen worse is no argument. Your claim of "legal references supplied" is not substantiated. -- ELEKHH T 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is not ready for wiki. I would suggest the author take it to sandbox, read WP:CITE and develop it further, then resubmit-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm unable to find any references to this term other than as a Greek word that is the source of the English word architect or as the name of various businesses. In particular, I can find no sources that support the use of the term as a designation for a particular level of accomplishmment in the United Kingdom, which seems to be the main thrust of the article (as nearly as it can be determined). Unless reliable sources can be adduced to support the article's statements, this fails WP:V. Deor ( talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Definately Don't Delete The word is obviously a direct contemporary translation from the Greek term, this is on other articles! why take it off this one? I say leave it alone for someone more intelligent than than any of us here, to edit. Theres no point in all of us argueing and trying to sound intelligent, the information is correct and concise. The link you can't find is on the page for arkhitekton, no trolling please. I agree it could be better, but not everyone has the time, and it is more informative and legally and linguistically accurate than nothing! Best Wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be a piece of original research wrapped around a dictionary definition. No evidence found in multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) that this is noted as a professional designation as seems to be the implied thrust of the article text. Similarly nothing found in UK-specific searches of The Guardian and The Independent newspaper sites. And for the specific mention of the 1968 Trades Description Act (now largely superceded): no mention there either. It is also worth noting that the contributing editor is in the process of setting up a magazine of the same name, to be published next year, on which he has also submitted an article. AllyD ( talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No sources provided, nor could any be found, to indicate the use of the term arkhitekton as a differentiation in qualification level from that of architect. Article certainly feels like an attempt to play into the author's attempts to create the Arkhitekton Magazine article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Chelsea Residences

The Chelsea Residences (  | 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 citations in the article do not seem enough to support WP:GNG, and I couldn't find suitable sources online. The article also seems promotional in tone. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "Seems promotional"? I'd say the entire article is an unfiltered WP:ADVERT for an unexceptional condo tower by far. Nate • ( chatter) 04:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to PU. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

P.U.

P.U. (  | 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 definition, etymology, and list of uses in popular culture was sent to Wiktionary in 2008. Similar content is now at wikt:P U. PROD was refused in 2008 because the article "seems to be slighly more than a dictionary def now". That slight addition, the list of cartoons or movies that use the expression, has since grown slightly, but none of the uses is sourced, nor do they seem notable. Cnilep ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 01:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PU which is a disambig page with this meaning as one of the entries. There is no reason to think this is the most common meaning for the two letters. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PU. Very little here is sourced - all that is is a dictionary definition. -- Michig ( talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Christian Economy

Christian Economy (  | 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 was deleted per an expired prod. It was undeleted via WP:REFUND, after an IP editor (presumably the article creator) said "I have gathered some reliable data on subject and now can make my article more scientific". However, it's been a few days and nothing has been done. As it stands, the article still consists solely of original research and personal opinion. St Anselm ( talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Christ expulses the money changers out of the temple.
  • Delete (obviously). Nom is right on the history and the content. The lede - "economic activities based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" - doesn't even match the premise of the title which is about economics and Christianity generally (not limited to the teachings of Jesus Christ). Base economics on the teachings of Jesus Christ in particular and you get this lovely Caravaggio here. I saw this in the AFD log and first thought StAnselm had nominated something akin to Islamic finance ( Islamic economic jurisprudence) for deletion. I should have known better! (Sorry!) One look is enough to discern that this original research has no place here. There are a range of articles that relate to economic theory and Christianity - the author should feel free to contribute to those. Stalwart 111 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To the extent that this is not simply a personal WP:ESSAY, it seems to be about a specifically Russian Orthodox approach to economics. However, apart from the one Russian paper cited in the article, I can find no literature to suggest that this approach is notable (at least, not yet). Other Russian sources may exist, but it seems the article author left Wikipedia a year ago, so we can't expect anyone to look for them. -- 101.119.14.135 ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a perfectly reasonable opinion piece based upon text from a revered book, but it is not more than an opinion piece. It's great blog material but is not valid Wikipedia material. Fails as WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 November 2013‎ (UTC) reply
  • Delete Failed promise to update. Suggest author copy/move to a sandbox and resubmit when complete.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Approve The article has been improved, external sources are added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.161.63 ( talk) 19:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article has several (unreliable) external links, but no references apart from the Semenov/Lebedev article. In any case, American approaches to Christian economics are better covered in existing articles such as Gary North (economist). We still have a fail of WP:OR and WP:N. -- 101.119.14.34 ( talk) 02:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I need a bit more time to gather needful data, could you please move my article to "Sandbox" until I finish it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.29.19 ( talk) 09:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The problem would be where to put it. It looks like you're moving between IP addresses so pegging down a useful "userspace" might be more difficult. If you were to register for a user account (free, anonymous) you could create a sub-page and keep a user draft there. Stalwart 111 11:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Following the aforementioned advice, I registered, what should I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireless457 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Excellent! I have userfied the article for you at User:Wireless457/Christian Economy draft. Stalwart 111 22:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Owen Marks

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

Run of the mill film editor. Has done nothing of note that would pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Beerest355 Talk 00:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep two-time Oscar nominee, and he edited Casablanca, one of the most iconic films of all time. There are several books about the making of Casablanca, there's likely enough material for a bio based on that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am the article's creator. Marks probably passes WP:FILMMAKER. Not a whole lot of biographical sources out there, but he edited over one hundred films and was nominated for two Academy Awards. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Passing Marks. Two Oscar nominations and a large body of work make up for the lack of media coverage. I'm expanding the woeful filmography section to include such films as The Petrified Forest, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, White Heat, etc. etc. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep other than needing more bio to fix the stub issue, notability seems to be valid, passes WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3 and #4 on a number of listed filmography-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep, silly AfD, among other things the subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I added one book source and the duration of his lifetime convinces me the majority of sources that can improve this are offline. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- clearly a long and distinguished career. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_2&oldid=1142630899"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 November 3 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Keep !votes are not based in policy. — Darkwind ( talk) 06:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Jeremy Pledger

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

Contested PROD. Article about an "Entrepreneur and former employee of the Missouri Republican Party" that claims notability as a sports blogger. I can find no significant coverage of the subject that could establish basic notability. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Noted Editor of the Facebook.com/PaulFinebaum page. Often cited on-air by Paul Finebaum. That's noteworthy sports blogging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl pledger ( talk • contribs) 23:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The qualifications for notability ask for someone to be famous and not irrelevant. Pledger(no relation) currently writes commentary read regularly by almost 15-thousand people as a service for the Paul Finebaum radio network and is a regular subject of conversation on air by both Finebaum and most of his callers(who make up the lion's share of the shows content). While certainly not the most famous and least irrelevant person, the subject meets the qualifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jl pledger ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm brand new to Wikipedia editing, but I'll attest to his fame. I live in Tennessee and I hear him talked about on the radio all the time. FinebaumListener ( talk) 00
36, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — User:FinebaumListener ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete From what I can see the references are also the external links to his facebook, twitter and personal websites. His claim to fame is helping someone run, unsuccessfully for office in his home town. Perhaps he will warrant a page in the future but not yet. PeteBaltar ( talk) 01:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

KEEP I've never heard of this guy, but I've heard of Paul Finebaum, the radio guy he does work for and is talked about, then he's noteworthy enough, as his show is huge on the radio in the south, and as much of a key part of his show that his listeners are, including this guy, he's got significant influence. Furthermore, his link to a fan page seems legit, and his 15-thousand followers there seem pretty interactive. I'd say enough people know him to for him to be regionally famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthernSaint ( talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC) — SouthernSaint ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Just because a radio show you know of mentions him doesn't mean he deserves a Wikipedia entry, likewise we need verifiable evidence, not claims. WP:NRV PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Wikipedia's inclusion criteria specifies that Pledger should have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I see no evidence of such coverage presented in the article, nor am I able to find any such coverage myself. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Roedy Green

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

Programmer of debatable notability, despite the glowing endorsement of this article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete From what I can saw his claim to fame is his dos application that has no sources beyond his own website, a self published book I cannot find anything on and that he was the second chair of a now defunct Gay and Lesbian Organization (GATE) from the 70's (again, no sources other than wikipedia and his site). I also noted that the founder and first chair of GATE isn't even named, he claims to be the second and have only held that role for a few months. Even if all he claims is true and it were referenced, it seems his accomplishments are fine, but not well known outside his own local circles as nothing is referenced. PeteBaltar ( talk) 01:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That he's a bit obscure is not reason to remove his article. Lack of proper citation, OTOH... - Denimadept ( talk) 01:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:SOURCE & WP:SPIP from this page and his other page it would seem he, or someone that visited his website made both these articles based off claims on his website, I can't find anything to satisfy various sections in the Verifiability rules. Having a website being proactive and writing batch files doesn't warrant a place on Wikipedia. DarExc ( talk) 16:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep the article as it is was, is pretty much a disaster, but founding member / chairman of GATE is verified by U of Toronto Press book [1] and by U of British Colombia books [2], his GLBT rights manifesto is verified by U of Illinois Press book [3]. His Mindprod site is listed as a resource in many JAVA handbooks such as this one from Wiley [4] and the National Institute of Standards and Technology counts his JAVA Glossary as a source [5] while his joke "How to Write Unmaintainable Code" is frequently mentioned, such as this Addison Wesley textbook. [6]. Then we have him highlighted as taking some extreme positions and actions against whaling [7] A lot of mentions in a lot of different areas. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Its funny how standards change, essentially the same article which got overwhelming "keep" back in 2006 was headed for the deletion bin today. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I also found mentions he was chairman of GATE for a few months, however, its founder and first chair isn't even named. Also Robert Douglas Cook, who would be the most notable of GATE members it would seem, only has a mention of his name and that he ran as the first openly gay MP on the GATE page. I don't see anything that Green personally accomplished in GATE from these sources nor is GATE itself a very large topic. Perhaps a mention of Green in the GATE article may be more appropriate if he's deserving? As to his JAVA glossary being referenced in the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 1998, the link it references is dead [8] and the references to his website and that joke as recommended reading in a couple old textbooks still fails WP:WHYN as that is not very significant IMHO, there are literally thousands of hand books on JAVA and many websites and their creators are referenced, that doesn't make them notable. PeteBaltar ( talk) 18:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete To address sources found by Red Pen: how many other founding members were there, and what notability criteria does that cover? We don't normally consider people notable for founding companies or NGOs. Having a book listed in a bibliography is not normally considered a sign of notability, unless the book was used in a classroom syllabus. The joke paper is potentially interesting but would need to see how many and types of sources. Working to save the whales is admirable, but not inherently notable, unless there was significant coverage in that aspect. I suspect the reason it was a Keep in 2006 the notability rules were less developed and so people operated on WP:SYSTEMIC bias a lot more than today - kept what they knew and liked. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Sources offered, especially 1 and 2, meet the requirement for multiple reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG as usually interpreted. Yes, yes, I get it, that these are not fabulous sources but I've lost count of the number of times I've !voted to delete on less but yet the consensus has been to keep. The claim that these sources don't meet our usual standards is believable only if you've never participated in many AfDs. Msnicki ( talk) 18:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Founding an organization is not inherently notable. That's all these two sources reveal about Green. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You're wrong. Notability requires reliable independent sources talking about the subject. It does not require that they report that he has any particular credentials or achievements. The test of notability is that others independent of the subject took note, not that we agree he deserved it. Those sources exist for Mr. Green and that's all that matters. I suspect you may be confusing the point of WP:ANYBIO, which is that in some cases, e.g., a Nobel prize, we may accept credentials alone as sufficient in lieu of sources. Msnicki ( talk) 23:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The two sources you mention have very brief passing mentions of him, 1 2 sentences with his opinions on the GATE organization quoted by the author followed by other peoples opinions who are also named; your second source is talking about someone else who remembers hearing him at a GATE meeting 2. I noticed as well he is not referenced as a founder of the organization, but as a founding member of a chapter of the organization for the city of Vancouver. I still believe this fails on WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are definitely passing mentions of his name among many others. I still think Delete and if warranted add his name to the GATE page, not sure on that one though. PeteBaltar ( talk) 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
This is a fair point of disagreement. It's always a judgment call whether the coverage in the sources offered is sufficient. I think it is based on having participated in countless AfDs where the consensus over my objections was to accept even less. But I respect your right to your differing opinion as correctly focusing on the quality and depth of the sources, not whether they describe sufficiently impressive accomplishments. Msnicki ( talk) 01:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The only reason I brought it up was because you had already recognized "these are not fabulous sources" which I could only interpret as a tactic admission they were trivial mentions (obviously) and so concluded you were going with a credential based argument under the special guidelines, since credentials are perfectly valid for certain occupations, such as heads of universities (for example WP:PROF). It's a quirk of the Notability guidelines that certain occupations get a free pass on credentials, and others don't. This is one that doesn't. That is all. Have a nice evening. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 02:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
No, I only addressing the quality of the sources, not what accomplishments they reported. We have often accepted less, usually over my objections. The prototypical example would be the author of a how-to book on some programming topic. Since lots of Wikipedians are programmers, there are always some who know the book and like it and that's all it takes, no other sources beyond completely trivial mentions needed. Msnicki ( talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I see your point here but in that case it would be more like saying someone briefly mentioned in that obscure programming book, because the author liked his website, deserves a Wikipage. A published author with various and significant mentions would be one step closer, he doesn't fit with either of these. I'm all for revisiting those authors too :D PeteBaltar ( talk) 02:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Obscurity is irrelevant. Many articles here on WP are about obscure topics and supported only by obscure sources. This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Of course a lot of topics and sources will be obscure. What matters is that the sources are reliable, secondary and independent. And to clarify, I had in mind authors of how-to programming books where often, the only source is the book itself, which is unquestionably WP:PRIMARY. But try explaining that to fans of that book. Msnicki ( talk) 03:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Fair enough, however, quality issue with the sources aside, not one, let alone a significant amount of them meet this line from WP:GNG ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Had this page not been created a while ago by him or a friend, no one would have thought him notable from reading any of these sources. PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
If it makes you feel better, it looks to me like I'm in the minority and the article is headed for delete. Msnicki ( talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Hehe, no, I'm just trying to convince you based on how I read into the rules but I'm just as open to you changing my mind by pointing out something I could be missing, no hard feelings mate. PeteBaltar ( talk) 04:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete I've looked through this and am tending to side with removal. Are there any better quality sources or is there a source where he is more than a brief mention? I'm just trying to see the notability here, which might still be there but the referencing doesn't justify that yet. If he were really notable one would think a unknown book would be eager to give him more than a sentence if they spoke with him but they didn't and they were only interested in his memory of that time, not him. As to the previous AfD I cannot imagine why they all voted keep, I looked at what was there prior to TheRedPenOfDoom editing it and it was not sourced and very poorly written. Kudos to TheRedPenOfDoom on finding these sources, maybe you can find something more significant to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? TomKoenig ( talk) 02:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Does writing a publication that helps to institutionalize and codify the "discrete signals" used for cruising for public sex count as a noteworthy achievement? [9] ? (the source is from google scholar, but I am not sure it qualifies as a reliable source)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
He didn't write this, he is referenced in it briefly as the author discovered the essay he wrote and she even mentions she didn't read it until she finished her paper, it just looks like more of what we already have, an obscure source with a brief mention of this person. PeteBaltar ( talk) 03:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
page 14: " Cruising , including sex in parks and washrooms are a part of the culture of the West End which has its own etiquette based on discrete signals (Bouthillette 70). Green and Fairclough helped to institutionalize this conduct, in particular when in washrooms. " it probably has something in there about the wide stance -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
No, that is not a reliable source. To be considered reliable, it must a source with a reputation for editorial control, accuracy and fact-checking. For an academic paper, that typically means publication in peer-reviewed journal. That's not what we have here. Msnicki ( talk) 03:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Divernon High School

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

Article has few sources (~10, due to the fact that it isn't an organization any more. Jakeable ( talk) 21:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Divernon High School reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - No valid rationale for deletion presented. Beyond that, by longstanding consensus at AfD, High Schools of verified existence are presumed to be notable; whether they still exist is neither here nor there so long as they did exist. Carrite ( talk) 06:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep What Cullen said! John from Idegon ( talk) 05:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Not again. By long precedent, secondary schools articles are invariably kept. No longer existing is not a reason for deletion. This is an encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Jace Daniels

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

Appears to fail WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet NGRIDIRON, NCOLLATH, or GNG. 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 22:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete normally Division II athletes don't generate enough press to meet WP:GNG, and that is even less likely with an offensive lineman. I don't see an exception here. The bulk of coverage that I can find seems to be around his high school playing days in local papers that happen to have archives online. Subject clearly fails WP:NGRIDIRON. I can find no notability measure to keep this article at this time.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Metodija Stepanovski

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

Though the article might technically meet WP:NSPORT because of two appearances in the Greek top flight almost ten years ago (which are only confirmed by transfermarkt, an unreliable source), the article clearly fails WP:GNG that even if it does meet WP:NSPORT it falls under the part of that guideline that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (Emphasis theirs). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per GS, whilst there is scope for young players to be given some grace if it seems reasonable they will keep playing, this guy is 30. Seems highliy unlikely he will achieve much more that would fulfil NFOOTY, let alone GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 12:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, WP:GNG failure, as GS mentioned as well, there is precedent to delete despite a bare passing of WP:NFOOTBALL, in cases where GNG is not met. I believe this is the case here. C 679 11:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Abundance (programming language)

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

There are no references other than an old article in Byte Magazine which was a self submitted article by the author, the claims put in the article have had no references despite a request for them nearly 3 years prior. PeteBaltar ( talk) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

"was a self submitted article by the author..." Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
"Which author, the author of the Byte article or the author of the WP article?" Sorry, it was authored by the author of the "Abundance Language" Roedy Green, he submitted an article to "byte magazine" about the language he was allegedly working on, there are no other references to it or its use anywhere else I can find other than his own writings in that article and his blog. PeteBaltar ( talk) 20:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I would point out that being publised by Byte, a very reliable source indeed, even if writen by the creator of the language, takes this out of the self-published category, However, I am not sure if a single published reference is sufficient. DES (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
While it takes it out of "self published", it doesn't make Green writing about Green's program any more "independent". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Green wasn't independant of course, but Byte surely was. If we assume that Byte's editorial staff passed the article, then I think we can consider this "coverage in an independent source". Whether it is enough coverage is still a question. DES (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Appears to fail WP:NRV & WP:SELFPUB. I searched for a bunch of different keyword combinations in google and could only come up with notes from mindprod.com which is the application writers home page. It doesn't appear to be a programming language but rather a simple dos application that he stopped updating and lost the notes/installtion for three decased ago, he also mentions someone [NASA] told him that NASA cannibalized his code, that's as much as I can find about the application, him and NASA (self published reference to nasa @ http://mindprod.com/precis/ab.txt) DarExc ( talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I've searched, and come up with nothing beyond Green's own blog [10] - where he remarks that "I have left this tombstone entry for historical interest". Perhaps sadly, history seems to have taken little or no interest at all - and without independent sources, neither will Wikipedia. Self-promotion, even in Byte magazine, cannot substitute for demonstrable notability from independent sources. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Apparently too obscure to be remembered by anyone but the author. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Without reliable secondary sources it does not pass WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - If no one, as a result of three deletion discussions, has found any citations to prevent further deletion proposals, then I think it's reasonable to conclude that such citations simply don't exist, and this isn't a notable subject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - As so eloquently stated by User:John Broughton. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 01:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Dennis Debbarma

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete obvious problems with meeting any of the notability guidelines. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only the barest assertion of notability to avoid an A7 speedy. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. No reliable source coverage found. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete easy delete, unreliable sources, not notable, looks like a self made page WP:SOURCES TomKoenig ( talk) 02:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Bleach (anime)

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

There was a decision at Talk:Bleach (anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) as well as at Wikipedia talk:MOSAM#Bleach break that opposed the creation of this page as separate from Bleach (manga) per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK but ChrisGualtieri has just gone ahead and gone against consensus to restore the page based on a single complaint made by Niemti at Talk:Ghost in the Shell. This article is superfluous to the coverage at Bleach (manga), in in direct violation of the guidelines set forth at WP:MOSAM, and is bordering on WP:POINT because he is using an AFD that closed as no consensus (see WP:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime)) as the basis for his decision that the article should go forth as he and only he plans and constantly demands that discussions regarding redirecting/merging be done at AFD rather than article talk pages by citing WP:BLAR. — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Rather than respond to his rudeness, this is a simple matter. First of all, MOSAM cannot institute its own notability guidelines as per the RFC. [11] Secondly, MOSAM doesn't say anything ABOUT this and it should not because WP:POLICY limits it to being a "manual of style". I think over 40+ references and many worldwide releases is presumption that the anime adaptation which contains a lot of original material is worthy of its own stand alone page. And I think the contentious nature of the repeated blank and redirect is clear that it goes to AFD under WP:BLAR and having it be held for the mediation which Ryulong dropped out of is not a resolution. This article can stand on N/GNG and WP:SS including both splitting and detail clauses. Ryulong wants this article to be non-existant and clearly there is more than enough information and references. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a deletion reason. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Its notability cannot be adequately distinguished from the originating manga. Both are notable as a unit rather than notable separately. This split goes against consensuses formed on the two pages I stated. You cannot keep splitting pages on the basis that "it meets GNG" because all of your references that you find are simply a western view point that overly inflates the presence of the anime version rather than the manga because for whatever stupid reason the manga is always more popular in Japan and the anime is always more popular in foreign territories. That is why WP:MOSAM suggests that pages be about both forms the media takes. It cannot forbid the creation of such pages, but the fact that a bunch of editors already decided that Bleach (anime) was entirely superfluous to Bleach (manga) and there is no need to completely separate the topics because they are so heavily intertwined as it is should be the selling point as to why you should have not recreated this page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    And you should stop using WP:BLAR to completely disregard WP:MERGE.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    MOSAM does not say that though and it is not official and it cannot comment on notability per the two RFCs. [12] [13] ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Stop saying it's not official because it gets in your way.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Bleach (manga), I saw no consensus for a split off here so we should form one on the respectable talk page not bring things like this to AfD. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    At 28kb WP:SPLIT suggests it and the adaptation is completely different. Perhaps you could state why the article should be merged instead of complaining about discussion pre-split. Stick to the content matter please. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 16:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Plot is identical. Cast and characters are identical. Discussion is identical. As I said above, the only reason there are any references critically discussing the anime is because it is exported faster and is the more popular form in Western consumption.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 16:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Chris I am just saying we should have a consensus in place first, this is contested so what will it hurt to have input from the community on the matter? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, don't merge The plot section contains two paragraphs about two different original arcs not found in the manga. The duplicate parts should be shortened, just link to the manga plot in its article. Voice cast, Production, Music, Episodes, Release, International releases, and Reception sections are all content not connected to the manga at all. So most of the article is about the anime not the manga. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the anime on its own, so it passes all notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Does description of the filler arcs really mean the anime and the manga are different though? Voice cast is what List of Bleach characters is for. Music and episodes are covered on the List of Bleach episodes articles. And Bleach (manga) was originally about both the manga and the anime. Just because the article is disambiguated as "manga" because Bleach is something that isn't a work of fiction to begin with should not be a valid reason to split an article off that would be so difficult to curate simultaneously, which is basically the only reason WP:ANIME editors came together to form WP:MOSAM and the bit of the guideline that stated "it's not a good idea to have separate articles on the anime and the manga".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Bleach (manga) should be about the franchise itself, since it has a lot of information not just related to the manga: Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other. And what is listed there about the anime, doesn't show the reception just the anime got, or other valid information found in this article. Dream Focus 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    It's not a franchise. It's a manga that has an anime adaptation that has films and video game adaptations. It being a franchise is an invention on Wikipedia. Tite Kubo's Bleach has never once as far as I am aware been referred to as a "franchise" up until you saying it is one right now. And the only reason Bleach (manga) doesn't show reception of the anime is because ChrisGualtieri deleted the section from the page.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Bleach is a franchise. Look it up in a dictionary. It is a media franchise that extends to books, anime, movies, novels, soundtracks, dramas, video games, toys and more. Not sure why you contest that. Though I'd like to point out that the anime reception should be much smaller and the movies and other deals should be on the franchise page, or if it becomes a manga centric page - removed. Either way this has no bearing on the current AFD. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Again with this franchise page nonsense. These do not work for anime and manga. And really the only place reception of the movies should be on the articles for the movies themselves, if they existed. Otherwise discussion of the animated movies should be in the same location as discussion of the animated television series because of same cast, same etc.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Franchise. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Your extreme views aside; they clearly work for Harry Potter, Star Wars and countless others. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 17:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Harry Potter is a sequence of 7 books and 8 movies and god knows what else. Star Wars is two trilogies of movies and a whole bunch of other stuff. Bleach is a still published manga, 300 anime episodes based on that manga, and a bunch of films that have nothing to do with either. The way Japan treats things is different from how Hollywood does and you should not use the same terminology.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    They are treated the same way. Bleach is a manga, Anime, Soundtrack CDs, Films, Musicals, Trading card game, Video games, Light novels, Other stuff, including toys. American comic books get turned into cartoons, movies, games, toys, and whatnot, in the same way. Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles uses the word "franchise" twice in the opening paragraph. So why would you not use that terminology? Dream Focus 18:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Because I don't think it works in the situation of manga and anime. A franchise page should be created when the subject has existed for such a long time that discussion of the whole gets in the way of discussion of its disparate parts. This has not, in my opinion, happened for various anime and manga. You can discuss the anime adaptation of Bleach alongside the original manga easily. All you have to do is say "this only happened in the anime" for shit like the Bount arc or the Captain Amagai arc and you say the anime is over and discuss the Wanderreich arc as part of the manga.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 18:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    Can you stop calling things "shit" and such just because you do not like it? Your enforcement of your personal views at any cost only results in highly confusing and sparsely written pages that do not even cover the adaptations or original content. You believe that the cast and characters are useless, but these are needed for the GA. Articles must have a proper level of self contained context for their topic and scattering it to the four winds only makes readers who want to access that information unable to do so. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 18:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    When have I ever said I didn't like it? And there has never been this call for a separate page on the anime version of Bleach until you decided it was the best idea since sliced bread. And you are the one "scattering it to the four winds" by taking all of the anime information off of the main Bleach page. List articles have always existed so I don't know why you think that's "scattering it".— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 20:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as an unnecessary content fork. The differences are adequately covered by List of Bleach episodes and the sixteen season lists. The parent article isn't long enough to justify a split either. — Xezbeth ( talk) 21:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No reason to merge or delete this article. It is plenty enough notable and worthy on its own. Technical 13 ( talk) 00:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per previous talk page consensus, and as an unnecessary content fork of a topic that can adequately be addressed in a single article.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 00:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • By the way, WP:SPLIT makes it clear that the article's size is not a justification for splitting in this case, as anything below 40 kB would fall under "length alone does not justify division" by following the rule of thumb provided in that page. An article with just 27 kB of readable prose is not long by any standards.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 00:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • What talk page consensus? The only thing that was done was edit warring to remove the page and the article is roughly 40kb as it stands right now. And half the references and a ton of content isn't even included yet! Can we please focus on why the anime is not suitable for its own stand alone article? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 01:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • The size guidelines refer to the prose size and not to the size of the article's wikicode, which is not considered to be a good measure of the overall length. The pre-split prose size of the Bleach article was just 27 kB, which is well short of the 50 that would make a split advisable. It could be possible that, since you plan to add lots of content, it might be better to split the article in the future, but for now we're not really close to that point.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 03:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you for clarifying that. I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, but I will accept it. I must ask about the specific focus being the topic of the anime and how that proper coverage of either the manga or the anime would result in a very long and complex article. More than half the article would not be applicable to the other half if combined and if a movie can get its own article, why not a 100+ hour long series? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Since you revealed this Underlying lk, ChrisGualtieri has been bloating the article with more content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
              • You mean expanding the article with more valid content? Dream Focus 07:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                • No, I don't think I wrote that at all, Dream Focus.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                  • I've just pulled more sources that I have access to. Like the "Behind the Scenes" documentary, and some academic works. I have added a good amount of necessary Kubo information and added some casting and analysis of the characters. I disagree with Ryulong's removal of the content covering Kubo's concept, design and name of the series. Especially while I am in the process of better organizing and filling in the gaps. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
                    • That information concerns the manga and not the anime. If this was a unified manga/anime article it might be valid to cover it, but since you demand that it's an anime only article it doesn't have a place.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 17:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If ChrisGualtieri can add new material supported by reliable sources to the new anime article, and by doing so he expands it enough to warrant a split of the main article, it would be a happy outcome for both parties IMO. But neither does this mean that it should be expanded just for the sake of keeping them separate: this for example, is clearly a list disguised as prose.-- eh bien mon prince ( talk) 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
It wouldn't really be a happy outcome because he still acted against consensus to produce a page that several people previously said he should not have. The fact that he has to spend 12000 characters describing the music and soundtracks, even with half of it in a table, really shows how much padding and bloating he is adding to the article to support its splitting.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 21:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Repeated blank and redirecting, personal attacks and robbing it of the AFD to push this consensus is silly. Not to mention the mediation matter needed all conflicts to end and this was included. Anyways, what's done is done and the community gets to decide. I'll clean up the soundtrack section. I didn't realize it was so unwieldy in that format. Ryulong, keep attacking me and calling my additions "bloating" and I'll bring it to Arb Com immediately. I see no reason that its themes, production or music should be removed. You want this article to fail. And that's bad faith. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You spent thousands of characters saying how many tracks were on each of the 4 OST disks and made a massive paragraph out of the character song albums. That's padding. And, all I did was move content to Music of Bleach because it's a better location for all of it than having a giant table on the article describing the same content.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 08:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I did not spend "thousands of characters" on how many tracks. You have once again removed an entire section that you should not have. It needs to be covered on this article and not "mained" out to somewhere else. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 11:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The paragraph about the 4 soundtrack volumes is massive. And you of all people are mad at me for splitting off an article?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 11:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
So... WP:POINT, then? 192.251.134.5 ( talk) 14:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You know, I had not realized that.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 15:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but can no one discuss the merits of the actual issue instead of piling on this "no consensus to first split"? We have 87 sources and 111 original episodes worth of content not found in the manga and not done by Kubo. Now I'm not sure why Ryulong is removing the cast information, but I'm not seeing a merge rationale and its more fury over the fact that an RFC over its split wasn't made. Though no one seems to be questioning notability or relevancy for the adaptation. The movies are less than 1/200th as long yet something larger than the original page can't stay? Sorta seems off. An all-in-one would completely ruin both pages. I've tested it. Check for yourself if your so inclined. We can discuss the "merge" issue after this AFD closes as "keep, discuss merge", but merging the two would put it back to being splittable under size. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The issue still somewhat stands that anything you say about the anime is pretty much what you can say about the manga and vice versa. Unless there are sources that commend the animation or that relate solely to the storylines that occur only within the anime (or its dub) then there's no reason to really differentiate between reception of the two media.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 03:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But we have that. And while the reception is one thing, what about the original arcs? What of the veteran cast and their roles? Why not be specific for articles that are specific? If you honestly believe a 150kb+ article covering the aspects of the anime and the manga and everything else is necessary - then say so. What I foresee is yet more pruning and cutting of content. At such sizes, it is not simple to navigate or comprehend. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm failing to see where this doesn't fall under WP:SPINOFF. Its WAY better sourced that most "List of X characters" that are kept around here (which, to be clear I don't actually object to either). 192.251.134.5 ( talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete along with every other silly article about cartoons and comic books. I don't understand what this junk is doing on WP at all, can someone explain to me why you have to establish notability for university professors or orchestral conductors for instance but childish stuff like this gets articles? Smeat75 ( talk) 19:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    WP:I don't like it isn't a valid reason to delete something. Wikipedia is mostly popular culture items, and always has been. These are the types of pages that most people visit, and take time to edit and fuss about. Destroying this sort of article won't make the other articles improve any. Dream Focus 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    I do not believe that your comments are helpful to this or any situation, Smeat75. Also, judging by the nearly two hundred combined sources at Bleach (manga) and Bleach (anime) that notability has been established per WP:N.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as unambiguous advertising (G11). -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure) reply

Radio HoiChoi

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

Author uses terms like "our", implying that they are affiliated with the radio program. Also it's an internet radio show... How well known is it? teratogen ( talk) 15:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy delete. This does not belong at AFD. I have tagged it for speedy deletion as spam. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Thank you. teratogen ( talk) 16:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice against merge or redirect if consensus develops that way. Mojo Hand ( talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Acceptance Speech (Dance Gavin Dance album)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS. It may do in the future, so I think it may benefit from being userfied. I did attempt to redirect it to band's article as a possible search term, but this was reverted. I think redirection to Dance Gavin Dance#Second Departure of Jonny Craig and Acceptance Speech (2012–present) or deletion are both valid outcomes. Boleyn ( talk) 19:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

It debuted at 42 on the Billboard 200, I think that makes it significant enough to remain. vbooy57 ( talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That's a good point. On top of that, I think once it gets some references and more content on reception and reviews, it'll be fine. Give it time. WeinribZ, yo. ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep per vbooy57. Charting on the Billboard 200 definitely makes it meet WP:NALBUMS. It just needs more material, which will come in time. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Dance Gavin Dance. How does charting on the Billboard 200 make it meet notablity requirements for albums? Charting in and of itself does not make an album notable. That info can be noted in the main article. It can always be recreated at a later date (and even kept before the end of this discussion) pending "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 01:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The chart placements suggest the album may be notable, and there are two staff reviews at Sputnikmusic, which WikiProject Albums considers reliable, but I'm not seeing much else in terms of significant coverage.  Gong  show 18:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge to Dance Gavin Dance. Personally I don't feel that there is enough here for a standalone article, but the content should either be kept or merged to the band article. I don't see any benefit to the project from deleting this. -- Michig ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: there are reviews. Tezero ( talk) 05:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Surf Style

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

Business that doesn't meet our notability standards, WP:CORP. Number of stores does not confer notability (there are similar surf shop chains all up and down the Gulf Coast). NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The number of stores certainly contribute to notability. And this is not just another surf shop chain. It's been covered by Frommers as a tourist destination for including an indoor surfing facility at its Clearwater Beach store, its been covered for its role in redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, its been covered for trademark disputes and advertising, its been covered in relation to its purchase and demolition of a historic dinner club in Biloxi, its been noted in relation to a notable model/ stripper etc. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 11:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Here's a story from a couple weeks ago about the company's partnership with Guy Harvey. Not sure what the issue is here, plenty of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as I noted above. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 13:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Galinha Pintadinha

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

Notability not established. The only source is the primary "official website" source. Article is three sentences long and contains questionable promotional language, "The songs...are getting millions of downloads on YouTube" No reliable secondary sources provided. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 09:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Soophie Nun Squad

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

Article fails to substantiate a claim of notability. More than seven years after creation it still has no citations in it. A Google search turns up Myspace and Facebook pages (and this Wikipedia article) but little else in terms of independent reliable third-party sources. None of the record labels mentioned has yet acquired its own page. The talk page emphasizes the outsider nature of the band, but this cannot be the sole basis of an entire Wikipedia article. A simple lack of verifiable non-trivial evidence of notability means the article should be deleted. KDS4444 Talk 07:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply

(Although they DO have a one-line entry at Urbandictionary.com: "absolutly the GREATEST band ever/ i met the members of soophie nun squad (and their hot)" KDS4444 Talk 07:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I believe that Soophie Nun Squad passes the #7 on WP:Band. They were very prominent in the Little Rock music scene in the 90s and 00s. They play a prominent roll in the documentary Towncraft that documents that period of Little Rock music history.
I was able to find a few more sources, let me know if these are viable.
I would also like to point out that a simple Google search brings up way more than you claim. They were a widely known band that toured extensively and has sold a lot of records, albeit independently, as evidenced by the sheer volume of sites with Soophie merchandise.

-- The_stuart ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with these two final sources is that neither of them provides a name of an actual author. When no author is provided, questions of reliability and independence get raised. Can you find any articles that have a named author? That would go a long way towards establishing notability. Also: the claim to satisfy #7 of WP:BAND still requires that the information be verifiable— that is what I have not been able to establish. Next: I do not think (I may be wrong here) that appearing in a documentary can be considered evidence of notability. If I am wrong on that point, I would appreciate being shown some examples to the contrary. Finally: I did not mean to suggest that a Google search does not produce many, many hits on the name of this band— it produces thousands. What I meant was that none of the results I found through a Google search appeared to constitute reliable independent secondary sources of information. Sheer volume does not equate to notability. KDS4444 Talk 00:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Motion comic. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Visioncomic

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

Contested PROD, removed without comment. Reason was Uncited original research, though I have corrected a typo in it! Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiny Toon Adventures characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Montana Max

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 16:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 W.I.T.C.H. characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Will Vandom

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

This character does not establish notability independent of W.I.T.C.H. through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 16:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 20:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Integral City

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

Article on a non-notable pseudoscientific theory that's effectively being used to promote the theory. All of the citations are to the originator's own publications. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 20:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK multiple book reviews. The article as nominated was in bad shape. I've refactored it as a book article and removed most of the content which was poorly formatted and incomprehensible. Added book reviews and citations. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 05:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Green Cardamom's good work in cleaning up this article and adding independent reliable sources has both shown the topic to be notable and has fixed the severe problems with the article. Nicely done. -- Mark viking ( talk) 15:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tenjho Tenge characters. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Kōji Sagara

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC ( talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied per CSD G3 (hoax). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 13:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Tekken: Dark Kontrol

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

Delete, all references are for wikipedia, no outside resources to verify information Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is the game a hoax altogether? If it is, it could just be speedy deleted... Sergecross73 msg me 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. I've tagged it as a hoax. I can't find anything to verify that a game by this name is being planned at all and the only hits are this article and some mirrors. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Mary Jo Buttafuoco

Mary Jo Buttafuoco (  | 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:BLP1E. Unlike Joey Buttafuoco or Amy Fisher, she had no media appearances after the fact and was quickly forgotten. Merge to one of those two articles or delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Partial merge to Joey Buttafuoco. Since her book has got significant media coverage [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] you could argue she meets WP:WRITER. But I still think that since the book is about her husband, her marriage, and the Amy Fisher affair, and she only wrote it and got it published and got any media coverage because of those factors, it makes sense to merge with her husband's article where the whole thing can be discussed in one. A merge is also justified by the fact that the "Aftermath" section is the same in both her and her husband's articles, so you really just need to merge the section about her book. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 16:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Her book and motivational career have been marginally notable, she has made media appearances on shows such as Howard Stern and The View to promote them. She is mostly notable for the Amy Fisher incident, but perhaps her work in recent years is notable enough to meet the requirements. LM2000 ( talk) 18:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. In this case WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because at least two of the three conditions are not met. 1. Sources cover her beyond the event, she is a published author and speaker, she has become a public figure over the long term. 2. She is no longer a low profile figure (a requirement of BLP1E). She may have been at the time of the event, but she capitalized on it and consciously chose to become a public figure by publishing books, going on TV, public speaking and so on. She could have chosen to remain private, which BLP1E is designed to protect, but in this case she became a long-term public figure by her own choice to write a book and appear on TV. Low profile figures don't have PR agents. Also the writing of the book didn't just happen automatically, she did it as a separate accomplishment from the initial event, they are not the same thing from a notability standpoint (one is AUTHOR, the other is VICTIM). -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Green Cardamom. She's notable beyond the obvious single event. There is copious coverage over her post-2000; certainly, there's enough to complete an article. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable public figure, per above. Carrite ( talk) 06:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Peyton Meyer

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NACTOR. To date he has only had a single, very minor role (3 episodes) as a character in one series, and appeared in another program as himself. WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but, to date, he hasn't come close to that. Nor does he have a fanbase. According to the article he will be a main character in a series to be aired sometime in 2014 but that's a little WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't establish notability now. In the event that he becomes notable as a result of the future role then the article can be recreated when the time is appropriate. AussieLegend ( ✉) 12:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For now, currently a stock player in the Disney sitcom repertory, and yes, likely to become more in GMW, but for now an article without much to go on. Another point; 'love interest' should never be used in an article describing a tween show. Nate • ( chatter) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now - TBA Disney star for now with no major role in either series it seems yet so I can't even begin to recommend redirecting. Google News and other searches provided pretty much the same, news articles (with some not-so-reliable or significant blogs) about the series with mentions in sentences or paragraphs about him but nothing solid yet. It could be taken as a good sign that there's some good coverage now but it's still a crystal ball. No prejudice, as always, towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now, per the above - subject to date does not yet meet WP:ENT. Redirects are cheap and I guess I would not be opposed to one since there is some coverage for his role on the upcoming Girl Meets World show, but I agree that it's still rather crystallball-ish.  Gong  show 07:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Mohammad Yaqoobi

Mohammad Yaqoobi (  | 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 cleric. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:GNG. Tanbircdq ( talk) 11:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Not only is he a Grand Ayatollah, and therefore a very senior cleric, but he is also the head of a significant political party in Iraq. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is one of the biggest Shia scholars in Iraq with great influence. Yes, he has created controversy, and many disagree with him, not just Sunni scholars, but even inside Sia Islam where he belongs. But because of that, all the more reason to keep the article. Admittedly a massive edit was unwarranted changing the balance of the article. But that would be a call to keep and edit the content, rather than call for the deletion of the page. werldwayd ( talk) 19:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant religious and political figure. The large first person voice section could do with being pruned though. AllyD ( talk) 20:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Of course he's notable as a Grand Ayatollah if nothing else. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - He's a Grand Ayatollah ...... Doesn't get more notable than that.
→Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 17:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013) - Jamaica

ISSA Manning Cup Football Competition (2013) - Jamaica (  | 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 school competition. Rejected CSD A10 as substantially larger than this article already at AfD. Contravenes WP:NSEASONS as this is not a top professional league. Competition is merely a school competition and not even a national one.Also contravenes WP:NOTSTATS due to lack of significant sources prose. Fenix down ( talk) 11:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nominator has withdrawn the nomination and no one other than the nominator had recommended that the page be deleted. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 07:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll Lead You Home

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn ( talk) 08:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn Thanks for the grat research and improvement made, Michig. Boleyn ( talk) 16:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Second-level ISP

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

Article is poorly written and reads like an advertisement. Tags indicate these issues have existed for years. A Google search for the term "second level ISP" gives this article as the first result, and many other relevant results copy directly from the article. Novusuna ( talk) 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Article is defiantly writtin like a advertisement but i do feel there is cause for a deletion for now until it can be rewriting and put in a way that is acceptable for Wikipedia Staffwaterboy Critique Me 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I could go either way on this. Either delete it, or merge with Anonymous web browsing and redirect. I agree that a lot of the content is poorly written and/or unsourced. The biggest problem I have with it though, is that for the most part, the term doesn't seem to exist outside of this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. (Google search [35]). If we merge and redirect, there are probably bits and pieces of this article that should/could be mentioned in Anonymous web browsing. —  LinguistAtLarge •  Talk  21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete This style of article really does not fit wikipedia. its a sort of essay/multiple advertisement/howto thing.

MopSeeker ( talk) 14:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - This is either WP:OR or it's a copyvio that we can't find any more because the article has been around long enough to be copied/indexed more than the original. Either way, it's not encyclopedic. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Tim Bilecki

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

Promotional article that fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 07:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete G11 - article is clearly intended as an advertisement for the law agency and promotion for his writing work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I went through each source. Many can be discarded as primary sources or no mentions of Bilecki at all. Some are very trivial mentions of a single quote buried in the article. A couple quote him a bunch of times. However in these, they are about court cases and clients, which is normal lawyer activity, like being a journalist on TV, it's part of the job be seen publicly. Need to see more in depth coverage about the lawyer. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr. Z-man 02:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Chris Joss

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

Unsourced BLP article of a French musician. Searches reveal not much in the way of sources except releases from the musician and his label, a few discussion board posts and the like, but nothing that would be considered an WP:RS. There is a slight argument that he may just meet criteria #10 of WP:MUSIC due to having some incidental music used in notable films, but that same guideline suggests that the article should be redirected if that's the only credible claim to notability. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 07:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick search found a bio and several reviews from Allmusic ( [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]), coverage in the book Film and Television Scores, 1950-1979: A Critical Survey by Genre ( [41]), a review in CMJ New Music Report ( [42]), several CMJ charts (e.g. [43], [44] - several more on GBooks), and coverage in Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet ( [45]). I suspect that a more thorough search would find more. -- Michig ( talk) 08:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO based on the sources listed above and others such as these [46] [47].  Gong  show 14:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Robert Andya

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

The subject of this article is not notable under Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline or as an athlete, specifically under the section High school and pre-high school athletes (the athlete's age is listed on the page, showing him to be of high school age). Related to athletes, this sportsperson has not competed in the Olympics, Youth Olympic Games, Pan American Games, skiing World Cup, World Championships, or the National Championships. A Wikipedia article's subject should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Related to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the sources listed in this article are not independent of the subject as they are mostly self published: blogs or profile pages for the athlete. Also, a Google search reveals no press articles to support the article. Further, a Proposed Deletion tag was added, endorsed, and removed from this article on 31 October/1 November; and relatedly, an article with a similar title, Robert andya, was deleted using Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 on 17 August 2013. While I admire this athlete's drive and accomplishments, he is not yet to the point in his career for a Wikipedia article. - tucoxn\ talk 06:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

!!!www.monsterarmy.com is the Monster Army Development Team Site. They and Section 0 Freeride(subsection of Monster Army) have provided the detailed career results for athlete Robert Andya!!! !!!I Darkstryker0 have done a personal interview with Robert Andya and have had all facts confirmed!!! This article should not be deleted due to the nature of the fact that the people nominating this page to be deleted do not have the knowledge I have gained through eye witness accounts and interviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstryker0 ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Darkstryker, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but the rule here is no original research. We can't base an article based on your own personal knowledge and research (or mine, for that matter). The material has to have been published somewhere; Wikipedia is not the publisher of first resort. There are plenty of places where you can share your knowledge about the subject - such as Facebook, or blogs - but Wikipedia is not one of them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • If I publish thye transcript of my articles that I have obtained and pages linking to official race results, can this page continue? I enjoy my research on Mr. Andya as I see him as the future of freeride skiing. This article can only go up from here I think

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstryker0 ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Adrián Sosa Nuez

Adrián Sosa Nuez (  | 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 real indication of notability or reliable references, written with a clear COI Jac16888 Talk 22:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Blogs, shop sites, self-publishing pages, nothing that is actually reliable as a references-- Jac16888 Talk 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Library of Congress, Google Books, Worldcat, Official national & internat. webs (three books)... enoughs sources, enough WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 00:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The sources in the article do not establish notability, and nothing better than these was found. -- Michig ( talk) 08:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • New sources addeds, you can look it. Is possible to buy (and to read) his books around the world. His first book is in international libraries, his second book is in all Spain and his third work is in Europe & North America (Canada even). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 17:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The fact that you can buy his books does not make him notable, none of the sources you have added can be considered reliable-- Jac16888 Talk 17:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
What's the minimum to consider an author how a writer with reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 17:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You need third party reliable sources that discuss the subject, not blogs, self-published releases and bookshops. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources-- Jac16888 Talk 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article have third party reliable sources.( Library of Congress index on "Artabán, el cuarto rey mago" , Google Books [48] ,News pages [49],Neutral pages [50],...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 18:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
LOC just proves he wrote a book, as does the Google books link, isladelecturas seems to be little more than a press release announcing a book and the fourth link just seems to be a list of places a book can be found-- Jac16888 Talk 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
He has wrote three books. With the first aprove, he is a writer already. The others books can´t be in libraries until some time after published. The necessary prove to the other works is that it stay in bookshop with a EAN (lawful & registered). The article never must not be deleted, but if it would be impossible, the minimum must be merged here [51] at "other version" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
You're not getting it, anybody can write a book and pay for it to be published - this does not make a person notable, similarly the fact he wrote about an actual notable book does not itself make his book or himself notable-- Jac16888 Talk 19:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Ok. But is possible that these kind of books are in the Library of Congress? This kind of wiki publication could be interesting to the people, because is a XXI century version of an old book of Henry Van Dyke. Here WP:N no is the problem, the problem here is the culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.234.82 ( talk) 19:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Keep and add to the "other versiones" of henry van dyke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.121.22.137 ( talk) 15:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • KeepNot enough reasons to be deleted(but not to merge). Large coverage as author, too much to be unremarkable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.44.171.5 ( talk) 17:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Bencherlite Talk 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC) reply

A book that never dies I

A book that never dies I (  | 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 book, actually a poem, that was just released today via "online magazines". It is by an non-notable author. Only ref in article gives one paragraph about the book and says it was released last February. Nothing says notable. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reference to an article by one Joseph Yaw Frimbong that predates this newly-published poem, article contributed by new editor User:Josephyaw who also contributed a speedy-deleted article on one J.Y.Frimpong - a slight hint of WP:COI. No evidence of attained notability. (Creative works don't qualify for CSD A7 but I wonder if this meets CSD G11 as promotional?) AllyD ( talk) 07:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find anything that would show that this is ultimately notable enough for its own article. The only source I found that looks relatively decent is this one, which is somewhat dodgy seeming. Even if we count it as a RS, it's not enough to keep an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; I can't find any evidence that this is notable (hat-tip to User:AllyD for their research into the actions around this article). Ironholds ( talk) 03:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Books on the radio

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

WP:CFORK of audiobook. "Books on radio" is not an established term is just another way of saying "audio book". We don't really differentiate if a book is read on radio vs audiobook, in fact many audiobooks are originally radio books and vice versa - they are all the same thing. Most "radio books" are categorized under Category:Audiobooks by title or series. This article looks like an attempt to create a list-article of books read on the BBC, mainly, which might be acceptable if it wasn't in the 1000s since it makes up the entire product catalog of AudioGO, the audiobook publisher of BBC productions. It's fine to discuss the topic in audiobook and radio drama. Also it's unsourced so a Keep vote would need to also establish using reliable sources that this is a notable topic separate from audiobook or radio drama. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Books read on BBC should be a sub section or indicator on Audio books, that is a better way to handle this. -- Nlfestival ( talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (See my remarks below) I see that this article has a long history, and it looks as though the primary intent was to identify radio programmes where book abridgements could be listened to. That is not what Wikipedia is for and there are now better ways of obtaining the information. Whatever the intention, the article lost its way because under Radio 4 Extra is listed a number of programmes that are not, and could never be confused with, serial book adaptations. Radio 4 Extra does have them, rebroadcast from the BBC archives, but these are not examples. Expanding Audiobooks and redirecting to there would seem to be the way to go because that article concentrates on the US experience and fails to make the point that in the UK and probably most of the world radio readings have been the main outlet historically and many releases in other media originate from that. There might be material enough for a proper history of the topic, and if so I might reconsider my vote, but there is little in the present article that should be kept so a merge does not seem appropriate. -- AJHingston ( talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Either merge with audiobooks or rename to List of BBC audiobooks. I agree with the nominator's FORK rationale, and if the list is kept as a list of BBC audiobooks, it should be titled as such. p b p 18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These are a specific class of audiobooks, those presented in narrated form on radio; up to now, almost all audiobooks are presented as physical recordings. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That is confusing the media with the product. For example there are no articles for books on CD-ROM, books on MP3, books on cassette tape, books on vinyl, etc.. the books on radio are exactly the same productions the BBC sells on MP3 and CD-ROM through AudioGO and Audible.com. The same exact production and product distributed concurrently via different media. They are simply audiobooks, no special "class" of audiobooks, just brand names ("BBC") and media distribution channels (radio, MP3, CD-ROM etc..). The old time radio productions are covered in radio drama and radio comedy. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If book readings are considered to be covered under radio drama and radio comedy then we do have a big categorisation problem. Every day the BBC has readings (by a single voice) of book abridgements. I have never thought of them, or heard them referred to, as radio drama. They are quite different in many ways and have been a major component in radio output from very early. Book readings do not need even to be of fiction, and on the BBC frequently are not. I must admit that I had been thinking of this article as being intended to be about readings, from the evidence of the article's history, but the title could encompass book dramatisation. Agreeing with Green Cardamom that we should not confuse medium with content, we do need to decide what content we are discussing and how best to cover it. Colonel Warden is quite right that something like the BBC's 1981 Lord of the Rings trilogy is a book dramatisation, but it is marketed in other forms as an audiobook. To avoid confusion I have decided to strike my vote above. It had not occurred to me until I saw Green Cardamon's remarks about 'old time radio productions' above that it might not have been appreciated by everyone just how much alive all this is (and BTW, the BBC re-broadcast Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' only the other day). If radio dramatisation is to be included then doing so in an article entitled audiobooks makes little sense. Indeed, there is a continuity with, say, Charles Dickens' stage readings of his books, and an article on book readings ought to to address it. After all, if it is content that matters whether readings were live (as early radio ones will have been) or recorded is irrelevant. We need to resolve this sensibly, and perhaps the answer would be to keep this article but recast, probably concentrating mainly on the BBC's output if they have been the major commissioner of this material in English. -- AJHingston ( talk) 11:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The BBC book readings are audiobooks. They are productions which are concurrently distributed through multiple channels: radio, AudioGO, Audible.com, Amazon.com (CD-ROM) etc.. the media these books are distributed on varies, but the product is the same. It's an audiobook. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
But they are not radio drama, as you suggest above. There is not really any doubt as to notability here, the question is how best to cover it. If we take today's output of one of the BBC channels, Radio 4 as a typical example, that contains book readings and dramatised book adaptation as well as original drama. The title 'books on the radio' spans those. A case can indeed be made for radically recasting and probably retitling audiobooks to cover spoken performance of books in whatever medium, including stage, putting dramatised spoken performance in another article even though those may then be marketed as audiobooks, or many other permutations. As things stand, though, a simple redirect is not possible, nor is a merge because the present content is unsuitable. The audiobooks article is not about this at all, including the absurd statement that the first audiobook was made in 1969, ignoring radio altogether. -- AJHingston ( talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The books heard on BBC are not exclusive for or to radio, sorry. It is similar to documentaries, the BBC makes them and distributes on web, TV, movie theater and DVD. We don't differentiate between documentaries aired on TV and those on DVD, they are just documentaries regardless of the media. Some people never saw The Blue Planet on TV but they own the DVD and probably think of it as a DVD product. Likewise BBC audiobooks are distributed via CD-ROM and digital download through partners such as Audible.com, Amazon.com and others. The shows air on BBC for free since BBC like PBS is a public institution but that doesn't mean they are a special type of audiobook, they are indistinguishable from any other audiobook. The article audiobook says "An audiobook is a recording of a text being read". -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
It is true that we would not distinguish between the cinema, television and DVD release of the same film, but we do distinguish in other respects between media and between networks, so I am not sure your premise is correct. Remember that the BBC commissions material primarily for broadcast, and the book readings are not necessarily released in other media - that is subject to commercial and copyright considerations and historically the option would not even have been available. It is very different from the case of a DJ's playlist. The audiobooks article does not even mention radio, and to give it due weight would have to undergo major expansion and editing. It is that which worries me - such a change in scope should really be discussed on the audiobooks talk page, and a redirect there is not even on the cards at this point. The more I think about it an article rather more extensive than the present audiobooks one would be possible eventually on the subject of books on the radio (bearing in mind that straight readings and dramatisations are in scope). My inclination is to reduce the present article, if necessary to a stub, keep it, and let it develop from there. -- AJHingston ( talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
OK, I was going to try and approach this from another angle and point out that we don't have articles on other generic radio topics like sports.. but in fact we have sports radio and indeed a whole Category:Radio formats including radio documentary -- so "books on the radio" is obviously a legitimate radio format genre next to these. The change of perspective came from looking at it from the POV of radio format genre instead of audiobook titles. The article should focus on the radio genre and less on listing audiobooks, except as part of retelling the genre's history. I think that will clear up the confusion. I've issued a Withdraw above however since others voted delete it will close normal procedure I believe. Content issues can be worked out separately from the AfD. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

FF Vinyl Records

FF Vinyl Records (  | 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 stand alone notability. References do not back FF Vinyl Records notability. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 02:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning towards delete - I have to say, at first glance, it looked like the article had alot of references despite that now alot of them seem to be dead even with searching archive.org. Detailed Google News searches including "Cardiff UK, "record label" and some of their clients provided nothing until my last search here (event listing, not very promising). The Guardian, The Telegraph and Daily Mail provided nothing as well. As I've mentioned, getting a good article on a record label is challenging sometimes because the record label hides more in the shadows behind the client or (2) there are mainly PR pieces. It doesn't even seem there's a website but this is probably due to the fact they are now a management company which actually tends to get lesser attention than record labels. Additionally, it doesn't seem they have a website even as a management company (at least, I can't find it). Doesn't seem to be much add to this article therefore I lean towards delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- A defunct record company that publisher 36 records strikes me as NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Arkhitekton

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

Per previous WP:PROD. No reliable reference. ELEKHH T 02:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH T 02:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reliable etymological and legal references supplied, no "trolling please", theres no need to delete just because you don't like accuracy or builders, fell free to add what you think is accurate and please cite your references and evidence. Please be objective, there's nothing personally intended about historiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The only references in the article are to the Wikipedia article on Architecture. Wikipedia is not, ever, a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article. AllyD ( talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

hi thanks for your message, are you sure? why? ive seen much worse, I am not an editing expert I am waiting for someone experienced to add and reconfigure, give it some time and we'll chat in a few months, an encyclopedia does not have to be an award winning essay every time, I think you are omitting valuable data and need to keep up to date, I wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if obvious articles were constantly deleted, I'd buy a book encyclopedia instead.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 3 November 2013

That you've seen worse is no argument. Your claim of "legal references supplied" is not substantiated. -- ELEKHH T 21:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article is not ready for wiki. I would suggest the author take it to sandbox, read WP:CITE and develop it further, then resubmit-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm unable to find any references to this term other than as a Greek word that is the source of the English word architect or as the name of various businesses. In particular, I can find no sources that support the use of the term as a designation for a particular level of accomplishmment in the United Kingdom, which seems to be the main thrust of the article (as nearly as it can be determined). Unless reliable sources can be adduced to support the article's statements, this fails WP:V. Deor ( talk) 16:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Definately Don't Delete The word is obviously a direct contemporary translation from the Greek term, this is on other articles! why take it off this one? I say leave it alone for someone more intelligent than than any of us here, to edit. Theres no point in all of us argueing and trying to sound intelligent, the information is correct and concise. The link you can't find is on the page for arkhitekton, no trolling please. I agree it could be better, but not everyone has the time, and it is more informative and legally and linguistically accurate than nothing! Best Wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis Cropley ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This seems to be a piece of original research wrapped around a dictionary definition. No evidence found in multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) that this is noted as a professional designation as seems to be the implied thrust of the article text. Similarly nothing found in UK-specific searches of The Guardian and The Independent newspaper sites. And for the specific mention of the 1968 Trades Description Act (now largely superceded): no mention there either. It is also worth noting that the contributing editor is in the process of setting up a magazine of the same name, to be published next year, on which he has also submitted an article. AllyD ( talk) 21:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No sources provided, nor could any be found, to indicate the use of the term arkhitekton as a differentiation in qualification level from that of architect. Article certainly feels like an attempt to play into the author's attempts to create the Arkhitekton Magazine article. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Chelsea Residences

The Chelsea Residences (  | 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 citations in the article do not seem enough to support WP:GNG, and I couldn't find suitable sources online. The article also seems promotional in tone. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete "Seems promotional"? I'd say the entire article is an unfiltered WP:ADVERT for an unexceptional condo tower by far. Nate • ( chatter) 04:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to PU. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

P.U.

P.U. (  | 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 definition, etymology, and list of uses in popular culture was sent to Wiktionary in 2008. Similar content is now at wikt:P U. PROD was refused in 2008 because the article "seems to be slighly more than a dictionary def now". That slight addition, the list of cartoons or movies that use the expression, has since grown slightly, but none of the uses is sourced, nor do they seem notable. Cnilep ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 01:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PU which is a disambig page with this meaning as one of the entries. There is no reason to think this is the most common meaning for the two letters. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to PU. Very little here is sourced - all that is is a dictionary definition. -- Michig ( talk) 11:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Christian Economy

Christian Economy (  | 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 was deleted per an expired prod. It was undeleted via WP:REFUND, after an IP editor (presumably the article creator) said "I have gathered some reliable data on subject and now can make my article more scientific". However, it's been a few days and nothing has been done. As it stands, the article still consists solely of original research and personal opinion. St Anselm ( talk) 00:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm ( talk) 00:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Christ expulses the money changers out of the temple.
  • Delete (obviously). Nom is right on the history and the content. The lede - "economic activities based on the teachings of Jesus Christ" - doesn't even match the premise of the title which is about economics and Christianity generally (not limited to the teachings of Jesus Christ). Base economics on the teachings of Jesus Christ in particular and you get this lovely Caravaggio here. I saw this in the AFD log and first thought StAnselm had nominated something akin to Islamic finance ( Islamic economic jurisprudence) for deletion. I should have known better! (Sorry!) One look is enough to discern that this original research has no place here. There are a range of articles that relate to economic theory and Christianity - the author should feel free to contribute to those. Stalwart 111 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. To the extent that this is not simply a personal WP:ESSAY, it seems to be about a specifically Russian Orthodox approach to economics. However, apart from the one Russian paper cited in the article, I can find no literature to suggest that this approach is notable (at least, not yet). Other Russian sources may exist, but it seems the article author left Wikipedia a year ago, so we can't expect anyone to look for them. -- 101.119.14.135 ( talk) 01:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a perfectly reasonable opinion piece based upon text from a revered book, but it is not more than an opinion piece. It's great blog material but is not valid Wikipedia material. Fails as WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 2 November 2013‎ (UTC) reply
  • Delete Failed promise to update. Suggest author copy/move to a sandbox and resubmit when complete.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Approve The article has been improved, external sources are added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.161.63 ( talk) 19:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The article has several (unreliable) external links, but no references apart from the Semenov/Lebedev article. In any case, American approaches to Christian economics are better covered in existing articles such as Gary North (economist). We still have a fail of WP:OR and WP:N. -- 101.119.14.34 ( talk) 02:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I need a bit more time to gather needful data, could you please move my article to "Sandbox" until I finish it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.221.29.19 ( talk) 09:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The problem would be where to put it. It looks like you're moving between IP addresses so pegging down a useful "userspace" might be more difficult. If you were to register for a user account (free, anonymous) you could create a sub-page and keep a user draft there. Stalwart 111 11:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Following the aforementioned advice, I registered, what should I do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireless457 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Excellent! I have userfied the article for you at User:Wireless457/Christian Economy draft. Stalwart 111 22:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig ( talk) 07:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Owen Marks

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

Run of the mill film editor. Has done nothing of note that would pass WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Beerest355 Talk 00:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep two-time Oscar nominee, and he edited Casablanca, one of the most iconic films of all time. There are several books about the making of Casablanca, there's likely enough material for a bio based on that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I am the article's creator. Marks probably passes WP:FILMMAKER. Not a whole lot of biographical sources out there, but he edited over one hundred films and was nominated for two Academy Awards. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Passing Marks. Two Oscar nominations and a large body of work make up for the lack of media coverage. I'm expanding the woeful filmography section to include such films as The Petrified Forest, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, White Heat, etc. etc. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep other than needing more bio to fix the stub issue, notability seems to be valid, passes WP:FILMMAKER criteria #3 and #4 on a number of listed filmography-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep, silly AfD, among other things the subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone 05:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I added one book source and the duration of his lifetime convinces me the majority of sources that can improve this are offline. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- clearly a long and distinguished career. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_2&oldid=1142630899"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE