Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 February 9 February >

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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of civil parishes of County Clare

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

Highly in accurate list of civil parishes, mainly pointing to places instead of parishes The Banner  talk 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I've found this which explicitly states Map of civil parishes of County Clare and all 81 are listed there and mapped out. I was reverted with this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to comment on the deletion and action by Banner out of respect for him, but I will say that the County Clare source proves this isn't completely inaccurate. Religious parishes are covered in Diocese articles aren't rather than actual parishes? Perhaps Banner you could provide proof that these are not civil parishes? Your concerns primarily appear to be about including civil parish and village of the same name in one article. Civil parishes and their main settlements centres are typically covered in one article for the British Isles. Village and civil parish in one is quite acceptable, especially as the quality is poor and its easier to improve that way. That doesn't make it an error calling a settlement which is also a civil parish as such and categorizing as such. My intention was to focus on improving each of the existing parish/village articles for County Clare and constructively work towards building new articles like Kilmoon. Most of the articles need a lot of work so I thought this was a constructive step to rooting out what needs to be covered and start working towards them. I thought it odd that we have lists of townlands but not parishes which are a lot more notable, and it might be best to redirect some of the townlands to the parishes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
A lot of those links are pointing to places, not to the religious parishes. While working for the parish Kilmurry Ibrickane (a short period in 2012), the parish priest denied that the parish was also a civil parish. The parish office is de facto part of the Civil Registration Service, but that does not make the parish a civil parish. That is original research, I know it but I think he knows where he was talking about... The Banner  talk 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
There is often confusion I think between religious and civil parishes. For me a modern government-recognized civil parish in Britain and Ireland is similar to a municipality in other countries with actual administrative function. It's certainly interesting though what you say about the parish priest, I believe you. I suspect the actual definition is blurred though and a lot of people find it confusing. All I know is that 81 civil parishes are formally recognized as the subdivisions of County Clare and I think that's enough to go on. It would be good to have 81 articles which are a decent start class level don't you think? A lot of the parishes actually have a village or town of the same name, and I think its reasonable to include village and parish as one article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
As far as I know the civil parishes were identical to the former Church of Ireland parishes, not the Roman Catholic parishes. The decline of the Church of Ireland is most likely the reason why the civil parishes fell into disuse. By now, the whole of West-Clare is just one parish (Drumcliffe). But true, they are never formally abandoned. To make the articles correct, you have to figure out the extent of the protestant parishes in county Clare and write articles about them. The Banner  talk 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Certainly confusing! Probably best to create separate civil parish templates to navigate them, any objections to moving the baronies from the places template into new templates for baronies and parishes?. The idea though was to cover areas of the county which are rural and at present poorly covered. I don't think many of the townlands are really that notable for their own articles so finding what you can and mentioning it in the parish articles I think is at least a start. Although of course if we could have 61,097 decent articles on every township I wouldn't object!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

These two pages can help you with that: Parish of Drumcliffe (Ennis-based, in effect West-Clare) and Parish of Killaloe (Killaloe-based, in effect East-Clare and a bit more). To add to the confusing: The first page is referring to "Kilfarboy". This used to be a RC-parish, linked to the church (still there) and monastery (presumed) in the townland Kilfarboy just north of Milltown Malbay. Later the parish and assets were seized and moved to the Church of Ireland. Nowadays, the RC-parish around Milltown Malbay, Moy and Spanish Point is named: Kilfarboy. The Banner  talk 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps that it's confusing is the reason why they're still missing! I think this definitely requires discussion to find the best way to cover it. If the civil parishes are still defined as formal subdivisions then it's worth doing, but if there are historical religious parishes overlapping then in terms of researching I think it'll be tricky. It does seem to me though that the civil parishes seem the same or at least similar. I just don't want to begin working on something and find it's outdated or false or whatever...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
It would be much safer to concentrate on the religious parishes (catholic and protestant) first. The Banner  talk 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Everyone wants to keep, that seems clear, yet out of 80 places 4 are articles about parishes. So that would mean creating 76 articles to make this list valid. The fact that it is kind of not used offically nowadays, never abolished but not used in common, everyday usage either civily or legally, this would make it a redundant task. I can see no reason as to the worthiness of such a list. An article saying something- yes alist of none existant articles- no. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This Is... Icona Pop, until such time that the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONG. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)

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

No charts, no awards, no covers, and references are not independent of the subject, fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • [IP restore] can probably be inferred from IP 112.201.190.86 since this IP editor restored this article after the nom Tbhotch blanked and redirected it, (I use the word blank to indicate no content was copied across) without discussion. Though the IP editor left no comment to explain his/her restore...
  • Mild Keep from myself also, mainly because a move discussion at Talk:Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) is ongoing and I don't think it is helpful. As far as the actual merits Philstar Broadway world Idolator seem to indicate that the song is approaching borderline WP:GNG, no great urgency to delete a song getting this coverage. 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) In ictu oculi ( talk)
I won't go so far as to strike it, but I think your inferred vote for the IP presumes too much. The reverting of the redirect could be procedural (i.e., BRD). Let the IP speak for himself or herself. -- BDD ( talk) 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That's true. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Are you sure? The second link isn't working for me right now, but it appears to be about a DJ remixing the song, like the third link does. And the third link's few sentences introducing an embedded file of the DJ's mix hardly constitutes the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires (i.e., "addresses the topic directly and in detail"). Same with the first link, which literally only mentions that the song exists on the relevant album. By this standard, essentially every song from every album we have an article on could have its own standalone article. Andrewa, could you explain why you think these references are up to GNG standards? In ictu oculi is welcome to answer as well, though I note the "borderline WP:GNG" in that argument. -- BDD ( talk) 21:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That was just easily accessible English links. A bit more digging found Swedish press coverage Smålandsposten "Men bland sköna nykomlingar finns In the stars och Just another night. ". sv:Smålandsposten is a newspaper founded in 1866, not a blog. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree it's borderline with respect to both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It's a slightly bizarre situation with the same article both proposed for a move as the primary topic in competition with other songs of the same name at least one of which is uncontroversially notable, and similtaneously proposed for deletion here (which seems to really be a redirect and merge proposal anyway). My conclusion (see the RM) is that both proposals are at the very least premature. One or both may even be a bit pointy, but I frankly don't see the point in stirring that particular pot. Just reject both and move on is my suggestion. If it looked like a vanity article I'd be a lot less tolerant, but it doesn't, and it represents quite a lot of work by an established contributor. Andrewa ( talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That RM has now closed with the closing admin commenting The clear consensus is that this recent song does not demonstrate notability sufficient for primary topic status, but I note that two experienced editors voted to move this article to the undisambiguated name, so it's only a rough consensus at best. Andrewa ( talk) 03:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

New South Wales 91 class locomotive

New South Wales 91 class locomotive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

locomotive class never existed, article was created in 2008 on basis of incorrect speculation in a trade magazine Mo7838 ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 ( talk) 20:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Grand Theft Auto clone

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

Grand Theft Auto Clone' is not a genre, and it should not be considered one, it is an ignorant term that game critics use so they don't have to give other open world games which contain vehicles, weapons and cities a higher score. The logic of this page means we should have pages such as 'Doom Clones' and 'Mario Clones', both Grand Theft Auto and other open world sandbox games which contain driving and combat belong in the open world genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HateUsernames2014 ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

National Express route A3

National Express route A3 (  | 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 A3 bus route does not appear to be notable: there is no significant coverage beyond the sole secondary source about the route (suttonguardian), which is from the day before the route was inaugurated. All the other sources about the route are not independent (National Express timetables). There are two secondary sources about a previous A3 that merely shares the name; it had a different route and wasn't even run by the same company. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Matty B Raps

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

No indication that the 10-year old subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Article contains one reference to a local news post, where it does not explain how he is significant either. STATic message me! 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable musican. Though he is famous online, he hasn't won any awards or was subject to a high media presence. 21:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) ///EuroCar GT
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think it'd be appropriate for Wiktionary, if I'm wrong feel free to let me know and I'll look into a transwiki. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Integrated Control and Safety System

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

Fails notability, seems original research. Has been tagged since 2008. Maybe could Transwiki into Wiktionary. Beagel ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Moses Farrow

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

Not notable for being the adopted son of famous people, as notability is not WP:INHERITED. That places his notability on commentary on allegations against his father, which calls into WP:BLP1E. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep Moses Farrow has been the subject of intense news coverage at three points in the last 20 years: during his dramatic courtroom testimony and subsequent media interviews in 1994, during his headline-grabbing denunciation of Mia Farrow in the 2000s, and - most recently - during his defense of Woody Allen in 2014. This is not a case of WP:INHERITED or WP:BLP1E; Farrow has (1) been the subject of news coverage for statements he has made, and not simply for being the child of someone notable, and (2) has not been in the news for a single event, but for 3 distinct and spatially separate events. If Wikipedia were a print encyclopedia and space were at a premium, yes, Moses Farrow is not Dorothy Hamill or Jimmy Carter. But it's not. He meets criteria sufficient to at least warrant a stub. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments by BlueSalix. The WP:INHERITED essay is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It would come into play if a vote Keep was based not on the sources but on who a person is. No one is claiming notability based on who he is. Invoking the essay in the nomination is a strawman against an argument that was never made. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, of course any source that discusses Moses is going to mention his famous father it can't be helped. As for 1E there has been long term coverage with multiple events. Those events have a common theme but they are not the same event, it's a stretch to interpret regular coverage over 30 some years as a single event, as discussed at BLP1E about persistent coverage. Also BLP1E requires a person to be a low profile individual and Moses is not low profile. -- Green C 21:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Unarvugal

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

Apparently non-notable, no reliable sources. Borderline spam. Huon ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete yes there's No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. The article is about an average soap opera and does not seem to be notable at all. Also it just contains an incomplete plot summary that is worded like an advertisement and seems to be original research and showing personal views of a, seemingly, fan. King Of The Wise ( talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Bivver

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

I'm not finding signs of notability meeting WP:NCORP, no significant third-party discussion. Alexa rank of over 3,000,000 suggests this is not a popular website. No recent gnews hits. Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 22:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Marvella Bayh

Marvella Bayh (  | 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 serious claim to notability, the main claims to fame being that she was wife and mother of two politicians. More like a personal essay or reflection than an encyclopaedia article ("she began her career as the ultimate political wife" etc etc). Of the two references, one is a book of which she was a co-author, and the other is merely a page that lists members of her family. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She was a highly notable public figure, especially for her work as an advocate for cancer patients. In the words of People Magazine, when she died she "was accorded a tribute like no other woman in public life since Eleanor Roosevelt." [1] Here is a 1976 profile from the Christian Science Monitor (reprinted in a newspaper) [2], a version of her AP obituary [3] and here is a recent article attesting to her significance in Indiana entitled "Marvella Bayh legacy part of state’s history". -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Clicking on either the web search or the books search turns up sources.  wp:Notability is defined by the topic and not the article, and wp:notability is not bestowed.  The Journal Gazette reports, regarding a 2013 magazine Traces of Indiana and Midwestern History, "...an article about Marvella Bayh, the first wife of former U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana...stretches across 10 pages of the magazine."  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foxy Brown (rapper)#2004–2005: Black Roses. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Black Rose Entertainment

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

Record label owned by Foxy Brown who seems to be the sole artist with only one album in 2008 thus not a very large label and another case of an artist's own non-notable label. Not much information to add or improve the article's state aside from the current. Google News searches provided nothing useful and this search found some news links but mostly in her name and it doesn't even seem this company has much ground or a website. My suggestion if not deletion is redirecting to Foxy_Brown_(rapper)#2004.E2.80.932005:_Black_Roses which would seem sensible. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The label has seen chart action, so it is at least marginally notable. However, with a single release, and because it is the artist's own label, a redirect to Foxy Brown per above makes the most sense. I seriously doubt the label had its own staff or marketing efforts independent of Koch Records. Seems to be an imprint only. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Leo Rocco

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

An article about the same man was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Rocco. Here's an extract from the final version of the article on Leonardo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda]], [[Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

And here's an extract from the new one on Leo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the Hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda Peregrín|Belinda]], [[Fey (singer)|Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

Same old article then. It's mostly just:

  1. lists of the celebs whose hair he's done (sporadically sourced), plus
  2. other stuff (unsourced)

I'd summarily delete it, if it weren't for the fact that it was me who nominated it for its previous AfD. Leonardo Rocco doesn't exist now, but I recommend salting it anyway, and deleting and salting Leo Rocco. (Anyone would then be free to create a new article on Rocco, but would have to do so via the appropriate route.)

See also WP:AfD/Kike San Martín (3rd nomination) (also started today) for the same thing elsewhere: article deleted via AfD, posted a second time under a different title (though for San Martín, subsequently renamed to the original title). (Incidentally, or not, both re-creations were by the same username.) Hoary ( talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing new here to change his notability, it's still an overly promotional puff piece. Last afd result should be applied here. Reposting is part of a bad faithed gaming of the system.
Lorena Pinot created by a Misty. Deleted 2 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Lorena Pinot (singer).
Kike San Martín created by a Misty. Deleted 20 March 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at "Kike" San Martín.
Leonardo Rocco created by a Misty. Deleted 9 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Leo Rocco.
All reposted by a new account at a new location, both to avoid scrutiny, trying to sneak the articles back in through a back door. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt (this and other name variations) - no further evidence of encyclopaedic notability since the previous AfD decision which should stand per CSD G4. AllyD ( talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Gregory Orfalea

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. My Google searches found a couple of book reviews from the WSJ, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, but no significant coverage of the author himself. The current version of the article was heavily edited by User:Gmo89 who claimed on IRC to be Mr. Orfalea himself. Huon ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Huon ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is the subject's work. It is not an independent assessment of his work by others and so does not count for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC). reply
Is that codified in the rules? WP:PROF is so complex I don't know. In general though the popularity of an author is not considered notable eg. best seller lists are not notable. Likewise library holdings is a sign of popularity. Generally we judge authors based on WP:AUTHOR which typically means book reviews. With that said when an author is widely held it's a good sign they probably have book reviews. -- Green C 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 01:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Kollenvilagam

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

I can find no evidence online that this place actually exists Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I also note from User talk:Vinobibin that this article was nominated for speedy deletion on 10 September 2013. This current version was recreated on 12 September 2013‎. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Are you folks telling me that there is a policy somewhere that says any size "settlement" (regardless of size) is notable and should be in the Wikipedia? I am asking because I don't know. Logic tells me that that would not be feasible, as it would eventually bring us to literally millions of towns, buroughs, unincorporated districts, townships, precincts, parishes, settlements, homesteads, etc., etc., etc. included here that would never have the notoriety to ever be more than just a stub article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think there are millions of population centers. Earth is finite after all and the Wikipedia servers are doing just fine with at least every population center in the United States. But yes, Wikipedia has long considered cities, towns and villages, however small, inherently notable as it's impossible for sources, whether government, historical or otherwise, to not exist.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Taking into account the overlaps (just in the United States) of townships; towns; districts, villages; postal zones; unincorporated settlements; enumeration districts, parishes; CDPs; municipalities; school districts and counties (and there are more) could all refer to the same piece of land as many others on this same list, I doubt that a million is much, if any, exaggeration. However, thanks for the info. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Miley Save Fuzzy

Miley Save Fuzzy (  | 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 topic doesn't appear to be particularly notable, especially because it seems to be a brief internet trend that died down as quickly as it began. Nearly one third of the sources provided are from MileySaveFuzzy.com itself; several other citations are random YouTube interviews and questionable websites. This topic has also failed to leave a lasting impact/legacy that would make it notable five years later, as having its own article would suggest. WikiRedactor ( talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

RainCode COBOL

AfDs for this article:
RainCode COBOL (  | 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 implementation fails to meet the software notability guidelines. I suggest redirecting the page to COBOL, similarly to how RainCode PL/1 was redirected to PL/I. EdwardH 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EdwardH 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong delete. Fails to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. No references among real books, academic journals/publications, or reliable source occurences in the first 100 hits of a google web search. (Around 120 occurrences in a books.google.com search because it turns up repeatedly as an incorrect multiple choice answer in some sort of scammy-looking computer-generated study material based on rehashed Wikipedia content). Agyle ( talk) 19:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD ( talk) 20:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Famous Four Media

Famous Four Media (  | 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 page without any reliable third party references. Itsalleasy ( talk) 18:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fun Pika 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs of 2009

List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs of 2009 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List is unclear, violates WP:MOS, and appears to be copy pasted from http://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2009/rock-songs. Tal Brenev ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment (  | 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 WP:NOTNEWS, everything in the news doesnt need a WP page. No indication of lasting notability beyond about a few days.
As an aside , the title indicates the province has been derailed. Lihaas ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Obvious Keep - firstly, the cause of this accident is an extremely rare occurrence. Trains normally run into rocks that have fallen onto the line and are derailed (q.v. Falls of Cruachan derailment). In this accident, the rock came tumbling down the mountain side and collided with the train, derailing it; +/- 10 seconds and there wouldn't be a story to tell. That the accident occurred on a heritage railway makes it even rarer. "Only" two deaths does not detract from the case for notability here. IMHO, this accident would have been as notable had all survived. As for the "no indication of lasting notability" argument, it is far too early to tell, but again, IMHO, the rarity of the event gives it notability. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Title used is that of the operator, as it was initially unclear exactly where the accident had occurred. Article can be moved to another title at some point once this AfD has been closed. Mjroots ( talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
What source indicates this as exceptionally important/unique/notable?
Why cant it go on to the article o the operator? Lihaas ( talk) 15:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
My claim is that this type of accident is rare, not unique. I don't know of any other accidents where a train has been clobbered off the line by falling rocks, but that don't mean that there aren't any, which is why I'm not claiming "uniqueness" here. That may come out in the coming days. Accident is already mentioned in the article on the page about the operator, as a quick check would have shown. Mjroots ( talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Although I agree that it is rare and unusual, that argument can only be used if a WP:RS claims it is rare. AadaamS ( talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Plenty of coverage. Reasonable to allow the article to develop. As noted as WP:RAPID, there's no rush to delete articles about breaking news events. If it turns out that this story dies down, then merger can be discussed later. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per long standing precedent, fatal train (and plane) accidents in industrialized countries are usually notable. Furthermore, nominating it now is poor form and pointless. Discussions in the immediate aftermath of a story are unproductive because no one can assess the impact properly and thus almost always close in no consensus. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Certainly unusual, too early to know anything about lasting notability. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
My thought is that as it's so unlikely to have been a random event, it's much more likely that the passage of the train caused the rock to move. But we need the official report for that. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Bobrayner: - title has been sent to naughty corner for 15 mins. Seriously, initial reports said "between Dignes and Nice", which are the best part of 100 miles apart. Hence I chose to use the operator when creating the article safe in the knowledge that the article can be moved once a better title becomes available. Suggest Annot derailment might be a good one, but article can't be moved until AfD is closed as it messes up links. Mjroots ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Wide coverage doesn't mean its fit for a WP page on itself. Lots of daily events do. That is exactly precident what NOTNEWS is about. Lihaas ( talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

UFO sightings in outer space

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

Not notable enough for a list article. Merge any useful tidbits into Gemini 7 and STS-48 articles. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete To be honest, the material sourced to Gemini 7 is self published and the material for STS-48 should probably be re-written if someone were to include it in that article, but I'm not convinced the due weight is there either. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unnecessary overcoverage of fringe theories. -- W.  D.  Graham 16:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Doesn't look like an actual coherent topic, just an originally researched amalgamation of fringe claims. jps ( talk) 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restore deleted material, rewrite Large sections of the article with references to the peer-reviewed journals http://www.cufos.org/pubs3.html and http://www.scientificexploration.org/ were deleted. This is deletion of properly referenced material, which turned the article into a shell of its former self, and now the article itself is up for deletion. The explanation for deleting the material refers to "self published", but in this case it is including a copy of a peer-reviewed journal article on the author's personal website, which is common practice among university professors. There are a few references that should be deleted because they could be considered "self published", but the properly referenced material needs to be restored. Obankston ( talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a well known fringe journal that publishes just about anything, cufos is clearly an unreliable publication for ufo believers. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This got wide attention during its times, and it is still revisited. The Journal of Scientific Exploration passes, so it's irrelevant whatever you just said about it. Two more sources were added. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Passes what? It's a clearly unreliable publication since it's peer review is not very thorough. Let me quote their own documents: "the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals." Something which intentionally publishes speculative or less plausible material is clearly not reliable. You saying "This got wide attention" but we are talking about a list article, so what "this" is is unclear. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
"... as a fairly well-known urban legend ...", why do you use the singular case when describing a list article? You do know that this article is not about an incident?
Per WP:FRINGE? You mean WP:NFRINGE which says: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Arguing it is notable without presenting the extensive sources is putting the cart before the horse; this is particularly considering that as it stands (and was already mentioned), the article is an original research amalgamation. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, here is one "dedicated article ... [written] in a serious and reliable manner, in ... one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers": Digital Video Analysis Of Anomalous Space Objects, by Mark J. Carolotto, in Journal of Scientic Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45-63, 1995. Bearian ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Not only that, but that article was in turn cited in two articles to be found at Google scholar, indicating "it has been referenced extensively". Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Finally, there are two books, Bad Astronomy and The Ufo Experience A Scientific Inquiry that reference the subject matter of this article. Bearian ( talk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I would point out that the paper you are referencing is in a "journal" which is not taken seriously by the scientific community. -- W.  D.  Graham 19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Arklow Town F.C.

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, they have never played in a ntional cup or league Murry1975 ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Y per CSD G10, " Attack page or negative unsourced BLP" and per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Farbsteinism

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

This article about an alleged ideology is a hoax or original research. While David Farbstein (1868-1953) existed and was a notable Swiss politician (see de:David Farbstein), his rather thorough German Wikipedia article does not indicate that he invented or promoted an ideology of his own. The words "Farbsteinism" or "Farbsteinismus" are not found in Google searches outside Wikipedia. The cited print sources also do not appear to exist. For example, the book "Joshua Thon: The Farbsteinismus, myth politics Farbstein Chronos Verlag, Zurich 2003", cannot be found when searching the online catalogue of the Chronos Verlag for elements such as "Thon" or "Farbstein".  Sandstein  13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This is not as well known as it appears on the (whole) world hatt only 18,000 followers and all these reports are a bit dated. Really believe me I'm even half-Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.46.58 ( talk) 13:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand)

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure list of programmes that are the same as the original Disney Channel. " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" Finealt ( talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The network has a limited amount of original programming, but that's easily fit into the main article; duplicative of the American list-of outside of the usual date battles from the crufters, something not really needed. Nate • ( chatter) 00:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Street Slip

Street Slip (  | 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 for this kickstarter project. No independent coverage. Doesn't fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Enric Naval ( talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of introducing a new genre of anything to the world. If you have third party sources that establish notability please add them to the article.-- Shantavira| feed me 13:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hare and Billet

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

British public houses are a cultural icon, but that does not mean all pubs are notable. This one provided the setting for the ill-researched comments of a British MP, and most of the citations provides only trivial mention of the pub in question.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete Actually, the history can NOT be traced, at least not with what we are given in the article. I'm not seeing any text about the history of the pub that isn't inferred from an old picture of uncertain provenance and which doesn't depict the present building and may or may not depict a predecessor. All I find is a lot of older incidental references and all the usual review material that accrues to any English pub. Oh, and the condiment flap, of course. Mangoe ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • snarky comment Actually, I did. And once I got past all the travel book review-of-every-pub-in-the-London-vicinity stuff, what I get are nothing but incidental references to it as a landmark and a couple of very minor incidents which happened on the premises or in the vicinity. I see nothing, for instance, that says how old the present building is. Present a reference provides a history of the pub, and we can talk. Right now what we have is original (and dubious) research out of a bunch of primary sources. Mangoe ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A notable pub, with history that's traceable back to at least 1780. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The 1780 painting by a notable artist shows it dates back to at least 1780. Plus there has been significant press coverage of Hendogate, all of which seems to mention the pub. And most signifiacnt of all, it was my local when I lived a few doors down some 20-odd years ago. Edwardx ( talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think that we ought to have [[WP:OLD]] redirected to WP:EXISTS. All we have, even after the article expansion is a bunch of trivial mentions within the context of some reckless and idiotic comment from some ignoramus speaking whilst behind parliamentary privilege. The painting also falls within the realm of WP:EXISTS. I don't think every subject ever painted by a notable artists is necessarily notable. It's not even clear that it's a painting of the pub – it sure doesn't look like it – it seems to be a picture of Black heath, although the artist chose to name the exact location by adding "near the Hare and Billet Inn". The print sources likewise all seem to use it as location identifiers, or near the location of a crime, just by virtue of being old. I reiterate: There are no substantive sources about the Hare and Billet and or its significance. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The painting in particular is a primary source that's being interpreted, as are all the other "well it's as least as old as this mention of it." Mangoe ( talk) 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mind admitting that, upon seeing the revisions and the image, I was fooled into thinking that the subject was notable. The real revelation came upon study of the information about the image, and when clicking on the GBooks research links offered by Northamerica1000. There really is nothing but contextual and locational information. Quite insufficient to give the pub encyclopaedic presence. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The British Library seems to be respectable and reliable source. If you don't like the way that they approach the topic then that's just your opinion. The point is that such sources provide detailed facts about the place and so we have significant coverage. The topic is new and we've only gotten started but the more we look, the more we find. As the place has a long history, the process of assembling sources takes time. Deletion would be disruptive to this process and there seems to be no reason for haste. Why have you not considered alternatives to deletion as required by our deletion and editing policies? Andrew ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A pub that is so historic that it hasn't even been given listed building status by English Heritage! Not even Grade II, the lowest grade. Yet again we have inflated claims for a pub's history that aren't backed up by the facts. For those that aren't aware of listing procedures, any pub anywhere near as old as this one claims to be would undoubtedly be listed. While there may have been an older inn on this site, it is clear that the current building is not it. It's basically a bog standard Victorian or Edwardian London pub. One of thousands. Just having the same name as an 18th century inn doesn't make it an 18th century inn. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The current physical building is unimportant. The similar Dog and Duck was demolished some time ago so that all that remains is an inn sign and that too may have been destroyed in a recent museum fire, but we still have an article about it. What matters is that these places are or were landmarks and appear in the historical record. This makes it feasible to assemble a good article about this history of the place over time. We are an encyclopaedia with an historical perspective, not a current directory or register. Andrew ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, but there must still be proof of notability. All I'm seeing now is "there used to be an inn of this name in the area and there's still a pub of this name in the area so it must be notable". Not so. There has to be a genuine reason for notability. If the building isn't notable then what is notable about it? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub like countless others. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Your thinking is not policy-based as we are not required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind. But, as it happens, it is possible to prove what you want because the conservation appraisal for the area declared that, "the Hare and Billet public house is a key building ... and a notable landmark." Q.E.D. Andrew ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Where did I say we were "required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind"? I said we were required to demonstrate notability. Not the same thing at all. Actually, that document says the pub is a key building in this group (i.e. the cluster of buildings in which it is situated), which is a rather different kettle of fish. Naturally a pub is a key building in any group of buildings. Being a notable building among a dozen buildings hardly proves notability. You could also say that about a largish house. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You wanted a reason and you wanted proof. The document is an official one which states explicitly that the place is notable and gives reasons why. If you don't like those reasons then that's just your opinion which, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not admissable here. Andrew ( talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't claim that I don't like it or that my opinion isn't valid. That's guaranteed to wind up any editor, let alone one who's been here as long and taken part in as many AfDs as I have. The document does not confirm that this pub is notable enough for Wikipedia. It merely confirms that it is a recognisable building locally. Of course it is. It's a pub! We still have no evidence that it's any more notable than any of the other pubs in Britain. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The listing process is rather more nuanced than that. For example, the Golden Lion, Fulham can trace its origins back to 1455, and the current building is an 1836 rebuild. It also has extensive historic associations with Shakespeare and others. It is not listed. I have no doubt that there are pubs with some or all of their buildings dating before 1780 that are not listed. Edwardx ( talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It's all good. Sources available online are somewhat thin; perhaps additional pre-internet print sources are available? Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I very much doubt it. If it's an 1836 rebuild then it is not listed because it's an 1836 rebuild and there is almost none of the original structure left! That means the building is not notable. In this instance, the pub itself is still notable because of its historic associations. However, the pub we are currently looking at appears to be notable neither for its current architecture nor its history. Just being a pub with the same name as an older inn doesn't cut it. Neither does being featured (very incidentally) in a painting. There are many pubs in England that have been around in one form or another for centuries. But this fact alone is not sufficient for notability. And the "Hendogate" drivel doesn't count, as it really was not a notable enough incident to make the pub notable by association. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, from what I can tell, The Armoury claims to have been established in 1738, but the current building is no older than Victorian. So in what way does this disprove what I said? To be honest, it's very rare for a pub to actually be as old as the marketing claims it is. Such claims always need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Age sells! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • But the pub itself doesn't seem to boast of its age. We have definite evidence of age from the British Library, which is not a promotional source. I've started going through sources which Google doesn't know about and find it said in The Times that the place appears in the Newgate Calendar in the 1740s as a haunt of highwaymen. The fact that the road is named after the inn seems quite strong evidence that it has been there a long time and we'd have to look through old maps and such to establish the details. The page has only been up for a week and so, per our editing policy, time should be allowed for this. Hasty deletion seems quite inappropriate while those !voting delete seem do not seem to have given any consideration of alternatives to deletion. The worst case here is that we'd have an entry for the place in the Development section of Blackheath per our editing policy. Deletion seems out of the question. Andrew ( talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but this is getting silly. All we have is evidence that an inn of the same name existed in the 18th century. Nobody is disputing that. What we do not have is evidence that this pub stood in the 18th century. What makes this pub notable? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Andrew Davidson:If you think deletion would be disruptive to continuing research, I would invite you userfy it so that it can be worked on in your private space. Alternatively, you could wait until it's been deleted and ask an admin to restore the content to your userspace – it works out to be the same either way. Probably the best course of action as its notability has yet to be demonstrated. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - More sources:
  • "Blackheath Conservation Area character appraisal and supplementary planning document" (PDF). Lewisham Planning Service – Conservation and Urban Design. March 2007. pp. 38–39. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  • "Hare & Billet has lost some of its character". London Evening Standard. May 12, 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2014. {{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= ( help)
  • "PubSpy reviews The Hare and Billet, Blackheath". News Shopper. July 25, 2013.
  • Evening Standard London Pub Bar Guide 1999 S S Int. p. 100.
  • "Hare and Billet". Time Out (London). July 18 2011.
 – Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks North, impressive research from yourselves and Andrew as always. Interesting to note this historic pub has in fact been serving Londoners since the 1600s! This additional extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources puts the policy based case for keep beyond doubt. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

CC Slaughters

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

Although this article about a gay bar does include references to reliable third-party sources, these sources consist of 1.) A listing in a Frommer's guide (Frommer's attempts to mention every gay and lesbian bar in the country in such guides) and 2.) two articles from the Willamette Weekly, which is a city paper in the state of Oregon, not a regional or national newspaper. On these grounds, the bar does not appear to meet WP:GNG and appears to be primarily a travel guide entry (see WP:NOTGUIDE). It exists, yes; it has had some news coverage, yes; but these things are true of many gay bars in Oregon which also don't have and so far do not appear to warrant Wikipedia articles about them (Scandals, Crush, The Egyptian Nightclub, etc.). This bar appears to not yet have risen to the level of notability required for a standalone article on Wikipedia, though I would be glad to withdraw the nomination if other editors could find evidence to the contrary... Also, I hear it's a fun bar. KDS4444 Talk 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This would be a quick and easy article to expand to Good status with a little TLC. No reason to delete, just expand a bit! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I expanded the article a bit. Hopefully this helps to establish notability. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I think it edges over GNG, I don't expect to see much about bars except when there is a notable legal issue, the rest tend to be reviews. I also suggest working this history into the article, as helping readers understand the history of the place and the name. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 13:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the suggestion, Sportfan5000. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And that should indeed be done... if the place is genuinely notable. KDS4444 Talk 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And that's great! The problem is that the article still consists solely of references from travel guides, or from articles in magazines and newspapers of limited interest and circulation. It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG yet-- can this be fixed? KDS4444 Talk 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That is not true. The article includes The Oregonian references... -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
All of the references from The Oregonian are appearances in lists or are mentions in passing, as stated above. None of them are articles about CC Slaughters. KDS4444 Talk 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of multi-touch computers and monitors

List of multi-touch computers and monitors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all device nowaday are multi-touch, this list can not be completed. Even if it is completed, this will be too long for an articles. Suggest delete or turn it to an Category. Asiaworldcity ( talk) 03:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with nominator, particularly if the list includes tablets like the iPad as computers (the iPad is currently included). The list may have been more manageable when multitouch was a novel feature, but it's become so common that at least hundreds (I'd guess thousands) of products would qualify, and the number of new products shows no sign of slowing down. –– Agyle ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this is unencyclopedic. Michig ( talk) 08:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Formula One race edits songs

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

Wikipedia:Notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR. No attempt at notability has been claimed nor appears to be possible. It is a non-notable list. It is triple intersection of songs used to make video clips by a website to promote a sport. A triple intersection of topics which together have no notability and is very much trivia. I may be a little sheltered by wikipedia standards but this is the most trivial article I've yet seen in Wikipedia. Falcadore ( talk) 02:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zappa O Mati 05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: This page now have multiple sources. I cannot solve the orphan issue, unless I can place the article links under the correct season. The orphan issue is the only issue present with this article.
WesleyBranton ( talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Absolutely no encyclopedic value. Calistemon ( talk) 03:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I will relocate the information to the season's page of each chart. ‎WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The information should not be placed in season articles. It has NO encyclopedic value. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • But it does! It is information that people use. I can't believe that Wikipedia even needs to close pages like this because there are far more useless pages on Wikipedia. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Here is a Wikipedia page that is a chart just like this one. Why is it allowed and this one is not? WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • If we close this page, why can this information just not be included in the season's page? Some nice people helping to make Wikipedia a better community worked hard on this page. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • You can close the page, but must have this information on the season's page. I agree having a separate page on this topic is unnecessary, but the information on the page is anything but that. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • There is an incredible long history of Superbowl commercials being independantly notable from the football game itself. Not something that can be claimed by a series of glorified you-tube clips. Just because something exists does not mean it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. We do not for example create an article on what Barack Obama had for breakfast in each day of his presidency. Just because something CAN be tabulated does not mean it SHOULD be tabulated.
          • To put it another way, has there ever been a news item published somewhere about one of these video clips? -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
            • To answer your question, no. BUT how is having this information posted to the correct season any different from having a movie soundtrack list on a movie article page? WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
              • For starters, movie soundtracks are published and sold on CDs, in most cases specifically for that movie and are recorded by notable artists and some go on to be independantly notable of the movie, like for example, Kenny Loggins "Danger Zone" was a hi-selling single. These video clips are not even included in the races they are associated with. It is like after seeing the latest Hobbit film a popular website discussion Tolkein's writings publishes an article stating a song should have been included in the movie, but was not, and then compileds a video clip of the song with scenes from the movie. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
                • These songs are from popular artists (ex. Airbourne) and are played throughout the entire Formula One season on TV and radio broadcasts. If Wikipedia is really that concerned about saving the 2 MB of network space that this article is taking up, then that is their poor choice. I'm just saying there will be over 4000 people (lots more once the season starts again) that will not like this desision. At least if this information is relocated, all of the hard work of the contributors won't be for nothing and the information that people want to see won't be lost. Plus, just to let you know, this information like these charts cannot be found easily anywhere else on the internet. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
If the videos uploaded are not by F1, it would be a copyright violation, and would be forbidden by Wikipedia.
  • To be honest, your argument about this being a copyright violation is invalid because there are no videos or audio clips attached to this article. These charts are to be used as a reference source and there has been no copyright infringement. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The video clips may not be attached to this page, but they are available elsewhere (i.e. YouTube), and the only way for this article to be compiled is that someone watched a video that would still be an unreliable source, unless they happen to have superhuman memory. Regardless, the charts can't be used as a reference source if there is no reference for the reference source. To reword that to prevent it from becoming Inception-like, if the charts can't be reliably sourced, they cannot be kept. Zappa O Mati 04:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The videos can be view legally on the Official Formula One website. Unfortunately, previous seasons are no longer available, but this is where the information can from. This is not copyright infringement because they are available for viewing on the website, downloading them however is copyright infringement. This is not being done on this page. As for the music, this can all be legally purchased on iTunes. Whether the user decides to pirate the music and/or videos is not our responsibility. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If there is only one source to cite, there is only one source to cite. What can I do about citing sources that no longer exist. It doesn't mean that information is false, it simply means that the sources are no longer available. And it would not be the Formula One website that would be cited, it would be each video individually. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • See? If no other method of getting sources is available, then no reliable third-party sources are available to help the page pass GNG. Also, as the F1 website is the only site that has the videos (and the ones that make the videos), read WP:PRIMARY, which says:

Although I believe your statement on the other videos originally being there, no other source has covered it in compensation. As a result, the article is terribly based on just one primary source, which is not at all a good thing on Wikipedia. Speaking of one source, WP:ONESOURCE#Lone source published by the article's subject would be a read. You might claim that it's "each video individually", which, then again, leads to WP:PRIMARY. For your second statement, other stuff exists, that's why. For your third statement: ha ha, no. Erasing info from the public happens with every article deleted. Zappa O Mati 05:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • For the life of me I just can't understand why the information cannot just be moved to the season page. There ARE people who use this information. In fact over 4000 people in the last 90 even though this information hasn't changed for months. I don't know why it cannot be moved.<br. WesleyBranton ( talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • In response to Falcadore's note to our article: "creating a bunch of "See also"s does not cure the article being an orphan. The article has to connect to other topics, not say - come look at me here!", these links were placed on the correct season pages and anchored to the corresponding year. The articles See Also sections were added to WERE related to the topic.
    WesleyBranton ( talk) 05:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an article of solely fan interest, and at that they must have to be really extreme F1 fans to even drill down to music in racing videos to even hold interest in this. Comparing to this, we don't have articles about the songs used in the highlights compilations for Inside the NFL, the former non-E/I iteration of This Week in Baseball or any of the various European football leagues which have weekly highlights shows with current music bedded into them because it's a topic barely of interest to much of anybody. Nate • ( chatter) 05:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Another question that I have is, why this page is just now being considered for deletion? This page has been around since 2012, so if there was something wrong with it, why was it not removed then? Instead, now you are deciding to attack this page. Why? WesleyBranton ( talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What a bunch of BS! Whenever you search anything about the F1 race edits in Google, this page is the second or first result. How can you say no one knows about it? Especially when over 4000 people know enough about it to visit it!
    This article IS relevant. I keep trying to add information about it in the Formula One page, but people keep removing it. It's almost like people are ignoring that the F1 Race Edits are real and that actual people know about them.
    This page is being treated as if it were fake! WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That is extremely common. Wikipedia pages are almost always one of the first two results. Also, I'm not saying no one knows about it, I'm saying no one gives a fuck about it until now. Also, you seem to be missing my point about WP:POPULARPAGE. Just because a page is visited by many does NOT make it an encyclopedic topic. Zappa O Mati 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • LISTEN This page has sources listed and is no longer an orphan because the link has been added to the Formula One article. There are no longer multiple issues with this article. According to you, the only category that this work falls into in the reasons for deletion is its nobility. Really though nobility is an opinion. Just because you don't feel that this page is important doesn't mean that this other users' opinions.

If you don't want these charts to have its own category, fine. Then at least let us add the information to the correct seasons. That's all I am asking.
WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I think you should listen as well. Notability may be the only category that the page "falls into", bur it is not an opinion, but rather, a guideline. A policy. Pages must be asserted by multiple reliable sources that includes sources not connected to the subject. The article may have its problems solved, but notability is what determines whether or not this page should stay. It's not the popularity/visitors, not the orphan status, but rather, its notability. It MUST pass the general notability guideline in order to be able to stay. Zappa O Mati 17:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This article DOES fit the guidelines. Here is the breakdown:

  • Significant coverage - The introduction covers a history and information about significance
  • Reliable - There are multiple sources, not only from the F1 website
  • Sources - There are multiple secondary sources
  • Independent of the subject - This page was not made by the F1 and is NOT advertising
  • Presumed - We are working on adding more information about the Race Edits as you can see from the introduction change

WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

No it does not. There are sources, but they are not RELIABLE SOURCES. Although Google Trends may be an exception (not too sure about ShareMyPlaylist), RC Tech and Not606 are forums, which are almost forbidden by policy. An example of a reliable source would be the networks that broadcast the edits' websites (i.e. Sky Sports). Also, for "presumed", you may have added info to the lead, but they are also sourced by the F1 page as well, which doesn't count as a secondary source. Zappa O Mati 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't know what to say! The videos are EXCLUSIVE to the Formula One website, therefore there are no other legal sources with the videos. I have sourced what I can. And ShareMyPlaylist IS a source. Why wouldn't it be? WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
We are not a shoppers guide. Just because you may find the information useful does not mean it needs a Wikipedia article. Just as we do not include full lyrics for songs, we do not need a list of songs featured in a set of F1-related videos. The359 ( Talk) 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is NOT a shoppers guide. The MUST be included on the F1 seasons pages because they are basically the theme songs for the race that year. Soundtracks are included and this MUST be included, because it is the "soundtrack" of the F1 season! WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
There is no justification for why this must be included. These are not soundtracks, this is not a movie, there is nothing official or related to Formula One as a sport that this article or these songs relates to. Shouting about it wont make it magically notable. And no, the WP:SPA IP address is not right, this article has absolutely nothing to do with articles on songs on Wikipedia. The fact that both discuss music is their only relation. We don't delete songs if they are notable. This article is not notable. That is consistency. The359 ( Talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That's where you are wrong. These race edits are produced by Formula One not a third party. These are official and exclusive videos. Therefore, this is related to the media part of Formula One. It is important to remember that Formula One is not only a sport, but also a business and should not be considered only for the sport aspect of the franchise. WesleyBranton ( talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I did add the link and the section to the media coverage, BUT it fits in with the topic. They have agreed to allow it to stay in the article because a user changed it back, but then undid that because they felt that it belongs. WesleyBranton ( talk) 02:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hm, it appears there's a box now stating they're actually moving there. Looks like they've officially moved, and are nearing completion of the move. Should this be closed soon? Zappa O Mati 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. A combination of FANCRUFT and ILIKEIT. It appears to be nothing more than a list of songs so that people have a resource for making their own playlists. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:N and is defines pointless. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unbeleivable! There is nothing wrong with this article, or even with topic that it cannot be merged or just kept. There are other pages on wiki with f------ child nudity (illegal) and this nice page is getting deletted? That is what wrong with wikipedia. These nice people are saving wikis a-- by writing (basicaly doing everything) all of thes articles for free, then mods and admins sit in their nerd caves and delete articles. The people are the only thing that keeps wikipedia from shutting down. Without them, wiki would be F-----! That's why I stopped using wiki years ago. I never use it at all. I workd on an article for f------ almost a year and then got stuck in the same situation that wes is in. the only reason im on here is because i saw a google+ post about this page and wantes to help save it. Everyone should just f--- wikipedia an take away all of the articles. Then wiki would be in deep s--- and maybe treat the users bettr. AND IF I COME BACK TOMORROW AND SEE THAT MY POST HAA BEEN EDIT OR DELETED, ILL BE F------ FURIOUS!!!!! ps. Sory the post is above the rest. Mh tablet no let me scroll the wiki ediyor. Feel free to move post down (MUST BE MOVED IN FULL) AND JST BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING DOES NOT MEAN THE ARTICLE CANNOT REMAIN HER AS WELL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.73.28 ( talk • contribs)
  • Just so you know, I didn't write this. It was put on yesterday night by an IP user. It was deleted, but I brought it back and censored it because it is bias to remove posts in a debate like this. Although, there is nothing in the Terms of Use that prohibits the use of profanity. WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Yes that IP is the same as before. I live in a duplex. The IP user is a person that I asked to write something for this user. We share internet and split the cost at the end of the month. For some reason my browser logged me out and it displayed the IP of the internet connection. If you are insinuating that I am the other user, you would be wrong. I just share the same internet. WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Lewis McAdam

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spec Sharp. The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sing Sharp

Sing Sharp (  | 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 moderately cited academic project/paper (~250 GS cites). Might be worth merging to Spec Sharp as an off-shoot/variant, but I don't think it's wp:notable enough by itself. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, a merge into Spec Sharp seems sensible! Snori ( talk) 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sarah Marince

Sarah Marince (  | 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 person is a completely minor musical figure, who has accomplished nothing to merit a wikipedia page. Xapxapxap ( talk) 00:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Moniem Suliman AtTroun

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

Fails WP:NOTE despite the reference from Amnesty International-- Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) ( talk) 00:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sybil Gibson Higley

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

This article appears to assert notability by inheritance from Charles Fritz Juengling, but notability is not inherited. It relies almost exclusively on sources that are primary and not independent. The substantive claim to encyclopaedic notability is... elusive to say the least. A genealogist best known for contributions to the genealogy field, apparently, but in the end these contributions seem not to be significant enough to inspire independent discussion of the subject herself. Guy ( Help!) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • delete fails SCHOLAR, GNG. Genealogy contributions do not appear to cross the bar into "significance" required for notability. Library holdings do not indicate significance as an author sufficient to achieve notability-- Only a handful of libraries. Google scholar does not show significant cites. Sourcing for article does not show significant coverage sufficient for notability. Did not find anything at Gale. Unable to locate significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there is some information on her work as a genealogist - and there are notable genealogists. I think the nominator's comment about being the aunt to Charles Fritz Juengling is entirely irrelevant since the article doesn't claim primary notability based on that. It would help if nominators could discuss the article and its content and not a fantasy version of the article in order to claim deletion via WP:NOTINHERITED which is WP:NOTPOLICY anyway. Let's focus on the article content and the notability guidelines. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Higley has made contributions to the genealogy field, including heading libraries, writing books and being used as a source over many years. Also, notability is independent of Charles Fritz Juengling. That is a small piece of info that was included in the family section, not using CFJ for notability. • Kbabej ( talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green C 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sindee Jennings

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Liza del Sierra

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reliable indicator of notability. That is especially true with pornography where floods of matches are common. How many of these 94 million hits are not porn sites? Very few from the samples that I got. As for PORNBIO, a single nomination that is not scene-related is not enough. Being named by a magazine as one of the 100 hottest porn stars (right now) is not a significant achievement. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the record, I checked that the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, which is currently at AfD, does not contain any indications of notability either.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Rode Vasyl Harytonovych

AfDs for this article:
Rode Vasyl Harytonovych (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:BIO) -- Ilyaroz ( talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2014_February_8&oldid=1142629149"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 February 9 February >

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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of civil parishes of County Clare

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

Highly in accurate list of civil parishes, mainly pointing to places instead of parishes The Banner  talk 23:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I've found this which explicitly states Map of civil parishes of County Clare and all 81 are listed there and mapped out. I was reverted with this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to comment on the deletion and action by Banner out of respect for him, but I will say that the County Clare source proves this isn't completely inaccurate. Religious parishes are covered in Diocese articles aren't rather than actual parishes? Perhaps Banner you could provide proof that these are not civil parishes? Your concerns primarily appear to be about including civil parish and village of the same name in one article. Civil parishes and their main settlements centres are typically covered in one article for the British Isles. Village and civil parish in one is quite acceptable, especially as the quality is poor and its easier to improve that way. That doesn't make it an error calling a settlement which is also a civil parish as such and categorizing as such. My intention was to focus on improving each of the existing parish/village articles for County Clare and constructively work towards building new articles like Kilmoon. Most of the articles need a lot of work so I thought this was a constructive step to rooting out what needs to be covered and start working towards them. I thought it odd that we have lists of townlands but not parishes which are a lot more notable, and it might be best to redirect some of the townlands to the parishes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
A lot of those links are pointing to places, not to the religious parishes. While working for the parish Kilmurry Ibrickane (a short period in 2012), the parish priest denied that the parish was also a civil parish. The parish office is de facto part of the Civil Registration Service, but that does not make the parish a civil parish. That is original research, I know it but I think he knows where he was talking about... The Banner  talk 11:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
There is often confusion I think between religious and civil parishes. For me a modern government-recognized civil parish in Britain and Ireland is similar to a municipality in other countries with actual administrative function. It's certainly interesting though what you say about the parish priest, I believe you. I suspect the actual definition is blurred though and a lot of people find it confusing. All I know is that 81 civil parishes are formally recognized as the subdivisions of County Clare and I think that's enough to go on. It would be good to have 81 articles which are a decent start class level don't you think? A lot of the parishes actually have a village or town of the same name, and I think its reasonable to include village and parish as one article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
As far as I know the civil parishes were identical to the former Church of Ireland parishes, not the Roman Catholic parishes. The decline of the Church of Ireland is most likely the reason why the civil parishes fell into disuse. By now, the whole of West-Clare is just one parish (Drumcliffe). But true, they are never formally abandoned. To make the articles correct, you have to figure out the extent of the protestant parishes in county Clare and write articles about them. The Banner  talk 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Certainly confusing! Probably best to create separate civil parish templates to navigate them, any objections to moving the baronies from the places template into new templates for baronies and parishes?. The idea though was to cover areas of the county which are rural and at present poorly covered. I don't think many of the townlands are really that notable for their own articles so finding what you can and mentioning it in the parish articles I think is at least a start. Although of course if we could have 61,097 decent articles on every township I wouldn't object!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

These two pages can help you with that: Parish of Drumcliffe (Ennis-based, in effect West-Clare) and Parish of Killaloe (Killaloe-based, in effect East-Clare and a bit more). To add to the confusing: The first page is referring to "Kilfarboy". This used to be a RC-parish, linked to the church (still there) and monastery (presumed) in the townland Kilfarboy just north of Milltown Malbay. Later the parish and assets were seized and moved to the Church of Ireland. Nowadays, the RC-parish around Milltown Malbay, Moy and Spanish Point is named: Kilfarboy. The Banner  talk 13:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Perhaps that it's confusing is the reason why they're still missing! I think this definitely requires discussion to find the best way to cover it. If the civil parishes are still defined as formal subdivisions then it's worth doing, but if there are historical religious parishes overlapping then in terms of researching I think it'll be tricky. It does seem to me though that the civil parishes seem the same or at least similar. I just don't want to begin working on something and find it's outdated or false or whatever...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
It would be much safer to concentrate on the religious parishes (catholic and protestant) first. The Banner  talk 13:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Everyone wants to keep, that seems clear, yet out of 80 places 4 are articles about parishes. So that would mean creating 76 articles to make this list valid. The fact that it is kind of not used offically nowadays, never abolished but not used in common, everyday usage either civily or legally, this would make it a redundant task. I can see no reason as to the worthiness of such a list. An article saying something- yes alist of none existant articles- no. Murry1975 ( talk) 16:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This Is... Icona Pop, until such time that the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONG. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)

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

No charts, no awards, no covers, and references are not independent of the subject, fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 23:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • [IP restore] can probably be inferred from IP 112.201.190.86 since this IP editor restored this article after the nom Tbhotch blanked and redirected it, (I use the word blank to indicate no content was copied across) without discussion. Though the IP editor left no comment to explain his/her restore...
  • Mild Keep from myself also, mainly because a move discussion at Talk:Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) is ongoing and I don't think it is helpful. As far as the actual merits Philstar Broadway world Idolator seem to indicate that the song is approaching borderline WP:GNG, no great urgency to delete a song getting this coverage. 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC) In ictu oculi ( talk)
I won't go so far as to strike it, but I think your inferred vote for the IP presumes too much. The reverting of the redirect could be procedural (i.e., BRD). Let the IP speak for himself or herself. -- BDD ( talk) 19:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That's true. In ictu oculi ( talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Are you sure? The second link isn't working for me right now, but it appears to be about a DJ remixing the song, like the third link does. And the third link's few sentences introducing an embedded file of the DJ's mix hardly constitutes the "significant coverage" that WP:GNG requires (i.e., "addresses the topic directly and in detail"). Same with the first link, which literally only mentions that the song exists on the relevant album. By this standard, essentially every song from every album we have an article on could have its own standalone article. Andrewa, could you explain why you think these references are up to GNG standards? In ictu oculi is welcome to answer as well, though I note the "borderline WP:GNG" in that argument. -- BDD ( talk) 21:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That was just easily accessible English links. A bit more digging found Swedish press coverage Smålandsposten "Men bland sköna nykomlingar finns In the stars och Just another night. ". sv:Smålandsposten is a newspaper founded in 1866, not a blog. In ictu oculi ( talk) 00:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree it's borderline with respect to both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It's a slightly bizarre situation with the same article both proposed for a move as the primary topic in competition with other songs of the same name at least one of which is uncontroversially notable, and similtaneously proposed for deletion here (which seems to really be a redirect and merge proposal anyway). My conclusion (see the RM) is that both proposals are at the very least premature. One or both may even be a bit pointy, but I frankly don't see the point in stirring that particular pot. Just reject both and move on is my suggestion. If it looked like a vanity article I'd be a lot less tolerant, but it doesn't, and it represents quite a lot of work by an established contributor. Andrewa ( talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That RM has now closed with the closing admin commenting The clear consensus is that this recent song does not demonstrate notability sufficient for primary topic status, but I note that two experienced editors voted to move this article to the undisambiguated name, so it's only a rough consensus at best. Andrewa ( talk) 03:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

New South Wales 91 class locomotive

New South Wales 91 class locomotive (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

locomotive class never existed, article was created in 2008 on basis of incorrect speculation in a trade magazine Mo7838 ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mz7 ( talk) 20:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Grand Theft Auto clone

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

Grand Theft Auto Clone' is not a genre, and it should not be considered one, it is an ignorant term that game critics use so they don't have to give other open world games which contain vehicles, weapons and cities a higher score. The logic of this page means we should have pages such as 'Doom Clones' and 'Mario Clones', both Grand Theft Auto and other open world sandbox games which contain driving and combat belong in the open world genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HateUsernames2014 ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 23:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

National Express route A3

National Express route A3 (  | 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 A3 bus route does not appear to be notable: there is no significant coverage beyond the sole secondary source about the route (suttonguardian), which is from the day before the route was inaugurated. All the other sources about the route are not independent (National Express timetables). There are two secondary sources about a previous A3 that merely shares the name; it had a different route and wasn't even run by the same company. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Matty B Raps

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

No indication that the 10-year old subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Article contains one reference to a local news post, where it does not explain how he is significant either. STATic message me! 20:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable musican. Though he is famous online, he hasn't won any awards or was subject to a high media presence. 21:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC) ///EuroCar GT
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think it'd be appropriate for Wiktionary, if I'm wrong feel free to let me know and I'll look into a transwiki. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Integrated Control and Safety System

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

Fails notability, seems original research. Has been tagged since 2008. Maybe could Transwiki into Wiktionary. Beagel ( talk) 17:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Moses Farrow

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

Not notable for being the adopted son of famous people, as notability is not WP:INHERITED. That places his notability on commentary on allegations against his father, which calls into WP:BLP1E. Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep Moses Farrow has been the subject of intense news coverage at three points in the last 20 years: during his dramatic courtroom testimony and subsequent media interviews in 1994, during his headline-grabbing denunciation of Mia Farrow in the 2000s, and - most recently - during his defense of Woody Allen in 2014. This is not a case of WP:INHERITED or WP:BLP1E; Farrow has (1) been the subject of news coverage for statements he has made, and not simply for being the child of someone notable, and (2) has not been in the news for a single event, but for 3 distinct and spatially separate events. If Wikipedia were a print encyclopedia and space were at a premium, yes, Moses Farrow is not Dorothy Hamill or Jimmy Carter. But it's not. He meets criteria sufficient to at least warrant a stub. BlueSalix ( talk) 18:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per comments by BlueSalix. The WP:INHERITED essay is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It would come into play if a vote Keep was based not on the sources but on who a person is. No one is claiming notability based on who he is. Invoking the essay in the nomination is a strawman against an argument that was never made. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, of course any source that discusses Moses is going to mention his famous father it can't be helped. As for 1E there has been long term coverage with multiple events. Those events have a common theme but they are not the same event, it's a stretch to interpret regular coverage over 30 some years as a single event, as discussed at BLP1E about persistent coverage. Also BLP1E requires a person to be a low profile individual and Moses is not low profile. -- Green C 21:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Unarvugal

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

Apparently non-notable, no reliable sources. Borderline spam. Huon ( talk) 16:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete yes there's No credible assertion signifying the notability of the article. No appropriate refs. Only one and that too to you tube (not allowed). Might have nominated it for speedy deletion if it's category (television-related articles) was listed in A7. The article is about an average soap opera and does not seem to be notable at all. Also it just contains an incomplete plot summary that is worded like an advertisement and seems to be original research and showing personal views of a, seemingly, fan. King Of The Wise ( talk) 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Bivver

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

I'm not finding signs of notability meeting WP:NCORP, no significant third-party discussion. Alexa rank of over 3,000,000 suggests this is not a popular website. No recent gnews hits. Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 22:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Marvella Bayh

Marvella Bayh (  | 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 serious claim to notability, the main claims to fame being that she was wife and mother of two politicians. More like a personal essay or reflection than an encyclopaedia article ("she began her career as the ultimate political wife" etc etc). Of the two references, one is a book of which she was a co-author, and the other is merely a page that lists members of her family. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She was a highly notable public figure, especially for her work as an advocate for cancer patients. In the words of People Magazine, when she died she "was accorded a tribute like no other woman in public life since Eleanor Roosevelt." [1] Here is a 1976 profile from the Christian Science Monitor (reprinted in a newspaper) [2], a version of her AP obituary [3] and here is a recent article attesting to her significance in Indiana entitled "Marvella Bayh legacy part of state’s history". -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 20:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep  Clicking on either the web search or the books search turns up sources.  wp:Notability is defined by the topic and not the article, and wp:notability is not bestowed.  The Journal Gazette reports, regarding a 2013 magazine Traces of Indiana and Midwestern History, "...an article about Marvella Bayh, the first wife of former U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana...stretches across 10 pages of the magazine."  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foxy Brown (rapper)#2004–2005: Black Roses. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Black Rose Entertainment

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

Record label owned by Foxy Brown who seems to be the sole artist with only one album in 2008 thus not a very large label and another case of an artist's own non-notable label. Not much information to add or improve the article's state aside from the current. Google News searches provided nothing useful and this search found some news links but mostly in her name and it doesn't even seem this company has much ground or a website. My suggestion if not deletion is redirecting to Foxy_Brown_(rapper)#2004.E2.80.932005:_Black_Roses which would seem sensible. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The label has seen chart action, so it is at least marginally notable. However, with a single release, and because it is the artist's own label, a redirect to Foxy Brown per above makes the most sense. I seriously doubt the label had its own staff or marketing efforts independent of Koch Records. Seems to be an imprint only. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Leo Rocco

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

An article about the same man was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Rocco. Here's an extract from the final version of the article on Leonardo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda]], [[Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

And here's an extract from the new one on Leo:

In the years of salon ownership, he began to become notable in the Hispanic world, music, television and fashion industries, working with artists such as [[Luis Fonsi]], [[David Bisbal]], [[Lorena Rojas]], [[Jamie Foxx]], [[Juanes]], [[Paulina Rubio]], [[Alejandro Fernández]], [[Belinda Peregrín|Belinda]], [[Fey (singer)|Fey]] and [[Adamari López]].<ref>{{cite news | author=[[Terra Networks]]| title=Look al estilo de los famosos | url=http://www.terra.com/mujer/fotos/look_al_estilo_de_los_famosos/83199| work=[[Terra Networks]]|language=Spanish| date= Mar 10, 2013| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | author=[[The Huffington Post]]| title=Miami Hair, Beauty & Fashion 2012 by Rocco Donna in Viceroy Hotel Miami. | url=http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/11/miami-hair-beauty-fashion-2012-fotos_n_2113585.html| work=[[The Huffington Post]]|language=Spanish| date= Nov 11, 2012| accessdate=Mar 10, 2013}}</ref>

Same old article then. It's mostly just:

  1. lists of the celebs whose hair he's done (sporadically sourced), plus
  2. other stuff (unsourced)

I'd summarily delete it, if it weren't for the fact that it was me who nominated it for its previous AfD. Leonardo Rocco doesn't exist now, but I recommend salting it anyway, and deleting and salting Leo Rocco. (Anyone would then be free to create a new article on Rocco, but would have to do so via the appropriate route.)

See also WP:AfD/Kike San Martín (3rd nomination) (also started today) for the same thing elsewhere: article deleted via AfD, posted a second time under a different title (though for San Martín, subsequently renamed to the original title). (Incidentally, or not, both re-creations were by the same username.) Hoary ( talk) 06:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Hoary ( talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Nothing new here to change his notability, it's still an overly promotional puff piece. Last afd result should be applied here. Reposting is part of a bad faithed gaming of the system.
Lorena Pinot created by a Misty. Deleted 2 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Lorena Pinot (singer).
Kike San Martín created by a Misty. Deleted 20 March 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at "Kike" San Martín.
Leonardo Rocco created by a Misty. Deleted 9 April 2013. Recreated by User:Lafonomania 19 April 2013 at Leo Rocco.
All reposted by a new account at a new location, both to avoid scrutiny, trying to sneak the articles back in through a back door. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt (this and other name variations) - no further evidence of encyclopaedic notability since the previous AfD decision which should stand per CSD G4. AllyD ( talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Gregory Orfalea

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. My Google searches found a couple of book reviews from the WSJ, Kirkus and Publishers Weekly, but no significant coverage of the author himself. The current version of the article was heavily edited by User:Gmo89 who claimed on IRC to be Mr. Orfalea himself. Huon ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Huon ( talk) 15:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
This is the subject's work. It is not an independent assessment of his work by others and so does not count for notability. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC). reply
Is that codified in the rules? WP:PROF is so complex I don't know. In general though the popularity of an author is not considered notable eg. best seller lists are not notable. Likewise library holdings is a sign of popularity. Generally we judge authors based on WP:AUTHOR which typically means book reviews. With that said when an author is widely held it's a good sign they probably have book reviews. -- Green C 17:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 01:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Kollenvilagam

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

I can find no evidence online that this place actually exists Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

I also note from User talk:Vinobibin that this article was nominated for speedy deletion on 10 September 2013. This current version was recreated on 12 September 2013‎. -- Derek Andrews ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Are you folks telling me that there is a policy somewhere that says any size "settlement" (regardless of size) is notable and should be in the Wikipedia? I am asking because I don't know. Logic tells me that that would not be feasible, as it would eventually bring us to literally millions of towns, buroughs, unincorporated districts, townships, precincts, parishes, settlements, homesteads, etc., etc., etc. included here that would never have the notoriety to ever be more than just a stub article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't think there are millions of population centers. Earth is finite after all and the Wikipedia servers are doing just fine with at least every population center in the United States. But yes, Wikipedia has long considered cities, towns and villages, however small, inherently notable as it's impossible for sources, whether government, historical or otherwise, to not exist.-- Oakshade ( talk) 00:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Taking into account the overlaps (just in the United States) of townships; towns; districts, villages; postal zones; unincorporated settlements; enumeration districts, parishes; CDPs; municipalities; school districts and counties (and there are more) could all refer to the same piece of land as many others on this same list, I doubt that a million is much, if any, exaggeration. However, thanks for the info. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 01:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Miley Save Fuzzy

Miley Save Fuzzy (  | 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 topic doesn't appear to be particularly notable, especially because it seems to be a brief internet trend that died down as quickly as it began. Nearly one third of the sources provided are from MileySaveFuzzy.com itself; several other citations are random YouTube interviews and questionable websites. This topic has also failed to leave a lasting impact/legacy that would make it notable five years later, as having its own article would suggest. WikiRedactor ( talk) 18:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

RainCode COBOL

AfDs for this article:
RainCode COBOL (  | 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 implementation fails to meet the software notability guidelines. I suggest redirecting the page to COBOL, similarly to how RainCode PL/1 was redirected to PL/I. EdwardH 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. EdwardH 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Strong delete. Fails to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. No references among real books, academic journals/publications, or reliable source occurences in the first 100 hits of a google web search. (Around 120 occurrences in a books.google.com search because it turns up repeatedly as an incorrect multiple choice answer in some sort of scammy-looking computer-generated study material based on rehashed Wikipedia content). Agyle ( talk) 19:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD ( talk) 20:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Famous Four Media

Famous Four Media (  | 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 page without any reliable third party references. Itsalleasy ( talk) 18:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fun Pika 20:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs of 2009

List of number-one Billboard Rock Songs of 2009 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List is unclear, violates WP:MOS, and appears to be copy pasted from http://www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2009/rock-songs. Tal Brenev ( talk) 23:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle ( talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment

2014 Chemins de Fer de Provence derailment (  | 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 WP:NOTNEWS, everything in the news doesnt need a WP page. No indication of lasting notability beyond about a few days.
As an aside , the title indicates the province has been derailed. Lihaas ( talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Obvious Keep - firstly, the cause of this accident is an extremely rare occurrence. Trains normally run into rocks that have fallen onto the line and are derailed (q.v. Falls of Cruachan derailment). In this accident, the rock came tumbling down the mountain side and collided with the train, derailing it; +/- 10 seconds and there wouldn't be a story to tell. That the accident occurred on a heritage railway makes it even rarer. "Only" two deaths does not detract from the case for notability here. IMHO, this accident would have been as notable had all survived. As for the "no indication of lasting notability" argument, it is far too early to tell, but again, IMHO, the rarity of the event gives it notability. Mjroots ( talk) 15:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) P.S. Title used is that of the operator, as it was initially unclear exactly where the accident had occurred. Article can be moved to another title at some point once this AfD has been closed. Mjroots ( talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
What source indicates this as exceptionally important/unique/notable?
Why cant it go on to the article o the operator? Lihaas ( talk) 15:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
My claim is that this type of accident is rare, not unique. I don't know of any other accidents where a train has been clobbered off the line by falling rocks, but that don't mean that there aren't any, which is why I'm not claiming "uniqueness" here. That may come out in the coming days. Accident is already mentioned in the article on the page about the operator, as a quick check would have shown. Mjroots ( talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Although I agree that it is rare and unusual, that argument can only be used if a WP:RS claims it is rare. AadaamS ( talk) 17:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Plenty of coverage. Reasonable to allow the article to develop. As noted as WP:RAPID, there's no rush to delete articles about breaking news events. If it turns out that this story dies down, then merger can be discussed later. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per long standing precedent, fatal train (and plane) accidents in industrialized countries are usually notable. Furthermore, nominating it now is poor form and pointless. Discussions in the immediate aftermath of a story are unproductive because no one can assess the impact properly and thus almost always close in no consensus. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Certainly unusual, too early to know anything about lasting notability. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
My thought is that as it's so unlikely to have been a random event, it's much more likely that the passage of the train caused the rock to move. But we need the official report for that. Edgepedia ( talk) 16:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Bobrayner: - title has been sent to naughty corner for 15 mins. Seriously, initial reports said "between Dignes and Nice", which are the best part of 100 miles apart. Hence I chose to use the operator when creating the article safe in the knowledge that the article can be moved once a better title becomes available. Suggest Annot derailment might be a good one, but article can't be moved until AfD is closed as it messes up links. Mjroots ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Wide coverage doesn't mean its fit for a WP page on itself. Lots of daily events do. That is exactly precident what NOTNEWS is about. Lihaas ( talk) 13:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

UFO sightings in outer space

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

Not notable enough for a list article. Merge any useful tidbits into Gemini 7 and STS-48 articles. LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete To be honest, the material sourced to Gemini 7 is self published and the material for STS-48 should probably be re-written if someone were to include it in that article, but I'm not convinced the due weight is there either. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unnecessary overcoverage of fringe theories. -- W.  D.  Graham 16:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, Doesn't look like an actual coherent topic, just an originally researched amalgamation of fringe claims. jps ( talk) 12:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Restore deleted material, rewrite Large sections of the article with references to the peer-reviewed journals http://www.cufos.org/pubs3.html and http://www.scientificexploration.org/ were deleted. This is deletion of properly referenced material, which turned the article into a shell of its former self, and now the article itself is up for deletion. The explanation for deleting the material refers to "self published", but in this case it is including a copy of a peer-reviewed journal article on the author's personal website, which is common practice among university professors. There are a few references that should be deleted because they could be considered "self published", but the properly referenced material needs to be restored. Obankston ( talk) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a well known fringe journal that publishes just about anything, cufos is clearly an unreliable publication for ufo believers. IRWolfie- ( talk) 19:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This got wide attention during its times, and it is still revisited. The Journal of Scientific Exploration passes, so it's irrelevant whatever you just said about it. Two more sources were added. - Sidelight 12 Talk 05:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Passes what? It's a clearly unreliable publication since it's peer review is not very thorough. Let me quote their own documents: "the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than those appearing in some mainstream disciplinary journals." Something which intentionally publishes speculative or less plausible material is clearly not reliable. You saying "This got wide attention" but we are talking about a list article, so what "this" is is unclear. IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
"... as a fairly well-known urban legend ...", why do you use the singular case when describing a list article? You do know that this article is not about an incident?
Per WP:FRINGE? You mean WP:NFRINGE which says: "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers." Arguing it is notable without presenting the extensive sources is putting the cart before the horse; this is particularly considering that as it stands (and was already mentioned), the article is an original research amalgamation. IRWolfie- ( talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, here is one "dedicated article ... [written] in a serious and reliable manner, in ... one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers": Digital Video Analysis Of Anomalous Space Objects, by Mark J. Carolotto, in Journal of Scientic Exploration, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 45-63, 1995. Bearian ( talk) 17:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Not only that, but that article was in turn cited in two articles to be found at Google scholar, indicating "it has been referenced extensively". Bearian ( talk) 17:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Finally, there are two books, Bad Astronomy and The Ufo Experience A Scientific Inquiry that reference the subject matter of this article. Bearian ( talk) 17:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I would point out that the paper you are referencing is in a "journal" which is not taken seriously by the scientific community. -- W.  D.  Graham 19:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 01:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Arklow Town F.C.

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, they have never played in a ntional cup or league Murry1975 ( talk) 15:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Murry1975 ( talk) 15:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Y per CSD G10, " Attack page or negative unsourced BLP" and per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Farbsteinism

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

This article about an alleged ideology is a hoax or original research. While David Farbstein (1868-1953) existed and was a notable Swiss politician (see de:David Farbstein), his rather thorough German Wikipedia article does not indicate that he invented or promoted an ideology of his own. The words "Farbsteinism" or "Farbsteinismus" are not found in Google searches outside Wikipedia. The cited print sources also do not appear to exist. For example, the book "Joshua Thon: The Farbsteinismus, myth politics Farbstein Chronos Verlag, Zurich 2003", cannot be found when searching the online catalogue of the Chronos Verlag for elements such as "Thon" or "Farbstein".  Sandstein  13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This is not as well known as it appears on the (whole) world hatt only 18,000 followers and all these reports are a bit dated. Really believe me I'm even half-Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.46.58 ( talk) 13:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 13:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand)

List of programmes broadcast by Disney Channel (Australia and New Zealand) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure list of programmes that are the same as the original Disney Channel. " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" Finealt ( talk) 11:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The network has a limited amount of original programming, but that's easily fit into the main article; duplicative of the American list-of outside of the usual date battles from the crufters, something not really needed. Nate • ( chatter) 00:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Street Slip

Street Slip (  | 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 for this kickstarter project. No independent coverage. Doesn't fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Enric Naval ( talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not for the purpose of introducing a new genre of anything to the world. If you have third party sources that establish notability please add them to the article.-- Shantavira| feed me 13:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Hare and Billet

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

British public houses are a cultural icon, but that does not mean all pubs are notable. This one provided the setting for the ill-researched comments of a British MP, and most of the citations provides only trivial mention of the pub in question.  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • delete Actually, the history can NOT be traced, at least not with what we are given in the article. I'm not seeing any text about the history of the pub that isn't inferred from an old picture of uncertain provenance and which doesn't depict the present building and may or may not depict a predecessor. All I find is a lot of older incidental references and all the usual review material that accrues to any English pub. Oh, and the condiment flap, of course. Mangoe ( talk) 13:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • snarky comment Actually, I did. And once I got past all the travel book review-of-every-pub-in-the-London-vicinity stuff, what I get are nothing but incidental references to it as a landmark and a couple of very minor incidents which happened on the premises or in the vicinity. I see nothing, for instance, that says how old the present building is. Present a reference provides a history of the pub, and we can talk. Right now what we have is original (and dubious) research out of a bunch of primary sources. Mangoe ( talk) 21:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A notable pub, with history that's traceable back to at least 1780. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 16:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The 1780 painting by a notable artist shows it dates back to at least 1780. Plus there has been significant press coverage of Hendogate, all of which seems to mention the pub. And most signifiacnt of all, it was my local when I lived a few doors down some 20-odd years ago. Edwardx ( talk) 23:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I think that we ought to have [[WP:OLD]] redirected to WP:EXISTS. All we have, even after the article expansion is a bunch of trivial mentions within the context of some reckless and idiotic comment from some ignoramus speaking whilst behind parliamentary privilege. The painting also falls within the realm of WP:EXISTS. I don't think every subject ever painted by a notable artists is necessarily notable. It's not even clear that it's a painting of the pub – it sure doesn't look like it – it seems to be a picture of Black heath, although the artist chose to name the exact location by adding "near the Hare and Billet Inn". The print sources likewise all seem to use it as location identifiers, or near the location of a crime, just by virtue of being old. I reiterate: There are no substantive sources about the Hare and Billet and or its significance. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The painting in particular is a primary source that's being interpreted, as are all the other "well it's as least as old as this mention of it." Mangoe ( talk) 10:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I don't mind admitting that, upon seeing the revisions and the image, I was fooled into thinking that the subject was notable. The real revelation came upon study of the information about the image, and when clicking on the GBooks research links offered by Northamerica1000. There really is nothing but contextual and locational information. Quite insufficient to give the pub encyclopaedic presence. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The British Library seems to be respectable and reliable source. If you don't like the way that they approach the topic then that's just your opinion. The point is that such sources provide detailed facts about the place and so we have significant coverage. The topic is new and we've only gotten started but the more we look, the more we find. As the place has a long history, the process of assembling sources takes time. Deletion would be disruptive to this process and there seems to be no reason for haste. Why have you not considered alternatives to deletion as required by our deletion and editing policies? Andrew ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 11:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A pub that is so historic that it hasn't even been given listed building status by English Heritage! Not even Grade II, the lowest grade. Yet again we have inflated claims for a pub's history that aren't backed up by the facts. For those that aren't aware of listing procedures, any pub anywhere near as old as this one claims to be would undoubtedly be listed. While there may have been an older inn on this site, it is clear that the current building is not it. It's basically a bog standard Victorian or Edwardian London pub. One of thousands. Just having the same name as an 18th century inn doesn't make it an 18th century inn. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The current physical building is unimportant. The similar Dog and Duck was demolished some time ago so that all that remains is an inn sign and that too may have been destroyed in a recent museum fire, but we still have an article about it. What matters is that these places are or were landmarks and appear in the historical record. This makes it feasible to assemble a good article about this history of the place over time. We are an encyclopaedia with an historical perspective, not a current directory or register. Andrew ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, but there must still be proof of notability. All I'm seeing now is "there used to be an inn of this name in the area and there's still a pub of this name in the area so it must be notable". Not so. There has to be a genuine reason for notability. If the building isn't notable then what is notable about it? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub like countless others. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Your thinking is not policy-based as we are not required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind. But, as it happens, it is possible to prove what you want because the conservation appraisal for the area declared that, "the Hare and Billet public house is a key building ... and a notable landmark." Q.E.D. Andrew ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Where did I say we were "required to demonstrate that our topics are special or different from other topics of a similar kind"? I said we were required to demonstrate notability. Not the same thing at all. Actually, that document says the pub is a key building in this group (i.e. the cluster of buildings in which it is situated), which is a rather different kettle of fish. Naturally a pub is a key building in any group of buildings. Being a notable building among a dozen buildings hardly proves notability. You could also say that about a largish house. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You wanted a reason and you wanted proof. The document is an official one which states explicitly that the place is notable and gives reasons why. If you don't like those reasons then that's just your opinion which, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, is not admissable here. Andrew ( talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please don't claim that I don't like it or that my opinion isn't valid. That's guaranteed to wind up any editor, let alone one who's been here as long and taken part in as many AfDs as I have. The document does not confirm that this pub is notable enough for Wikipedia. It merely confirms that it is a recognisable building locally. Of course it is. It's a pub! We still have no evidence that it's any more notable than any of the other pubs in Britain. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The listing process is rather more nuanced than that. For example, the Golden Lion, Fulham can trace its origins back to 1455, and the current building is an 1836 rebuild. It also has extensive historic associations with Shakespeare and others. It is not listed. I have no doubt that there are pubs with some or all of their buildings dating before 1780 that are not listed. Edwardx ( talk) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It's all good. Sources available online are somewhat thin; perhaps additional pre-internet print sources are available? Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I very much doubt it. If it's an 1836 rebuild then it is not listed because it's an 1836 rebuild and there is almost none of the original structure left! That means the building is not notable. In this instance, the pub itself is still notable because of its historic associations. However, the pub we are currently looking at appears to be notable neither for its current architecture nor its history. Just being a pub with the same name as an older inn doesn't cut it. Neither does being featured (very incidentally) in a painting. There are many pubs in England that have been around in one form or another for centuries. But this fact alone is not sufficient for notability. And the "Hendogate" drivel doesn't count, as it really was not a notable enough incident to make the pub notable by association. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, from what I can tell, The Armoury claims to have been established in 1738, but the current building is no older than Victorian. So in what way does this disprove what I said? To be honest, it's very rare for a pub to actually be as old as the marketing claims it is. Such claims always need to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Age sells! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • But the pub itself doesn't seem to boast of its age. We have definite evidence of age from the British Library, which is not a promotional source. I've started going through sources which Google doesn't know about and find it said in The Times that the place appears in the Newgate Calendar in the 1740s as a haunt of highwaymen. The fact that the road is named after the inn seems quite strong evidence that it has been there a long time and we'd have to look through old maps and such to establish the details. The page has only been up for a week and so, per our editing policy, time should be allowed for this. Hasty deletion seems quite inappropriate while those !voting delete seem do not seem to have given any consideration of alternatives to deletion. The worst case here is that we'd have an entry for the place in the Development section of Blackheath per our editing policy. Deletion seems out of the question. Andrew ( talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but this is getting silly. All we have is evidence that an inn of the same name existed in the 18th century. Nobody is disputing that. What we do not have is evidence that this pub stood in the 18th century. What makes this pub notable? Nothing that I can see. It's just a pub. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Andrew Davidson:If you think deletion would be disruptive to continuing research, I would invite you userfy it so that it can be worked on in your private space. Alternatively, you could wait until it's been deleted and ask an admin to restore the content to your userspace – it works out to be the same either way. Probably the best course of action as its notability has yet to be demonstrated. Regards, --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - More sources:
  • "Blackheath Conservation Area character appraisal and supplementary planning document" (PDF). Lewisham Planning Service – Conservation and Urban Design. March 2007. pp. 38–39. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
  • "Hare & Billet has lost some of its character". London Evening Standard. May 12, 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2014. {{ cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= ( help)
  • "PubSpy reviews The Hare and Billet, Blackheath". News Shopper. July 25, 2013.
  • Evening Standard London Pub Bar Guide 1999 S S Int. p. 100.
  • "Hare and Billet". Time Out (London). July 18 2011.
 – Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks North, impressive research from yourselves and Andrew as always. Interesting to note this historic pub has in fact been serving Londoners since the 1600s! This additional extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources puts the policy based case for keep beyond doubt. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

CC Slaughters

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

Although this article about a gay bar does include references to reliable third-party sources, these sources consist of 1.) A listing in a Frommer's guide (Frommer's attempts to mention every gay and lesbian bar in the country in such guides) and 2.) two articles from the Willamette Weekly, which is a city paper in the state of Oregon, not a regional or national newspaper. On these grounds, the bar does not appear to meet WP:GNG and appears to be primarily a travel guide entry (see WP:NOTGUIDE). It exists, yes; it has had some news coverage, yes; but these things are true of many gay bars in Oregon which also don't have and so far do not appear to warrant Wikipedia articles about them (Scandals, Crush, The Egyptian Nightclub, etc.). This bar appears to not yet have risen to the level of notability required for a standalone article on Wikipedia, though I would be glad to withdraw the nomination if other editors could find evidence to the contrary... Also, I hear it's a fun bar. KDS4444 Talk 04:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This would be a quick and easy article to expand to Good status with a little TLC. No reason to delete, just expand a bit! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I expanded the article a bit. Hopefully this helps to establish notability. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 07:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I think it edges over GNG, I don't expect to see much about bars except when there is a notable legal issue, the rest tend to be reviews. I also suggest working this history into the article, as helping readers understand the history of the place and the name. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 13:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the suggestion, Sportfan5000. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And that should indeed be done... if the place is genuinely notable. KDS4444 Talk 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
And that's great! The problem is that the article still consists solely of references from travel guides, or from articles in magazines and newspapers of limited interest and circulation. It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG yet-- can this be fixed? KDS4444 Talk 11:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC) reply
That is not true. The article includes The Oregonian references... -- Another Believer ( Talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
All of the references from The Oregonian are appearances in lists or are mentions in passing, as stated above. None of them are articles about CC Slaughters. KDS4444 Talk 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of multi-touch computers and monitors

List of multi-touch computers and monitors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all device nowaday are multi-touch, this list can not be completed. Even if it is completed, this will be too long for an articles. Suggest delete or turn it to an Category. Asiaworldcity ( talk) 03:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with nominator, particularly if the list includes tablets like the iPad as computers (the iPad is currently included). The list may have been more manageable when multitouch was a novel feature, but it's become so common that at least hundreds (I'd guess thousands) of products would qualify, and the number of new products shows no sign of slowing down. –– Agyle ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that this is unencyclopedic. Michig ( talk) 08:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of Formula One race edits songs

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

Wikipedia:Notability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTDIR. No attempt at notability has been claimed nor appears to be possible. It is a non-notable list. It is triple intersection of songs used to make video clips by a website to promote a sport. A triple intersection of topics which together have no notability and is very much trivia. I may be a little sheltered by wikipedia standards but this is the most trivial article I've yet seen in Wikipedia. Falcadore ( talk) 02:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zappa O Mati 05:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

UPDATE: This page now have multiple sources. I cannot solve the orphan issue, unless I can place the article links under the correct season. The orphan issue is the only issue present with this article.
WesleyBranton ( talk) 15:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Absolutely no encyclopedic value. Calistemon ( talk) 03:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I will relocate the information to the season's page of each chart. ‎WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The information should not be placed in season articles. It has NO encyclopedic value. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • But it does! It is information that people use. I can't believe that Wikipedia even needs to close pages like this because there are far more useless pages on Wikipedia. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Here is a Wikipedia page that is a chart just like this one. Why is it allowed and this one is not? WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • If we close this page, why can this information just not be included in the season's page? Some nice people helping to make Wikipedia a better community worked hard on this page. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • You can close the page, but must have this information on the season's page. I agree having a separate page on this topic is unnecessary, but the information on the page is anything but that. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • There is an incredible long history of Superbowl commercials being independantly notable from the football game itself. Not something that can be claimed by a series of glorified you-tube clips. Just because something exists does not mean it is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. We do not for example create an article on what Barack Obama had for breakfast in each day of his presidency. Just because something CAN be tabulated does not mean it SHOULD be tabulated.
          • To put it another way, has there ever been a news item published somewhere about one of these video clips? -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
            • To answer your question, no. BUT how is having this information posted to the correct season any different from having a movie soundtrack list on a movie article page? WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
              • For starters, movie soundtracks are published and sold on CDs, in most cases specifically for that movie and are recorded by notable artists and some go on to be independantly notable of the movie, like for example, Kenny Loggins "Danger Zone" was a hi-selling single. These video clips are not even included in the races they are associated with. It is like after seeing the latest Hobbit film a popular website discussion Tolkein's writings publishes an article stating a song should have been included in the movie, but was not, and then compileds a video clip of the song with scenes from the movie. -- Falcadore ( talk) 03:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
                • These songs are from popular artists (ex. Airbourne) and are played throughout the entire Formula One season on TV and radio broadcasts. If Wikipedia is really that concerned about saving the 2 MB of network space that this article is taking up, then that is their poor choice. I'm just saying there will be over 4000 people (lots more once the season starts again) that will not like this desision. At least if this information is relocated, all of the hard work of the contributors won't be for nothing and the information that people want to see won't be lost. Plus, just to let you know, this information like these charts cannot be found easily anywhere else on the internet. WesleyBranton ( talk) 03:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
If the videos uploaded are not by F1, it would be a copyright violation, and would be forbidden by Wikipedia.
  • To be honest, your argument about this being a copyright violation is invalid because there are no videos or audio clips attached to this article. These charts are to be used as a reference source and there has been no copyright infringement. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The video clips may not be attached to this page, but they are available elsewhere (i.e. YouTube), and the only way for this article to be compiled is that someone watched a video that would still be an unreliable source, unless they happen to have superhuman memory. Regardless, the charts can't be used as a reference source if there is no reference for the reference source. To reword that to prevent it from becoming Inception-like, if the charts can't be reliably sourced, they cannot be kept. Zappa O Mati 04:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The videos can be view legally on the Official Formula One website. Unfortunately, previous seasons are no longer available, but this is where the information can from. This is not copyright infringement because they are available for viewing on the website, downloading them however is copyright infringement. This is not being done on this page. As for the music, this can all be legally purchased on iTunes. Whether the user decides to pirate the music and/or videos is not our responsibility. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • If there is only one source to cite, there is only one source to cite. What can I do about citing sources that no longer exist. It doesn't mean that information is false, it simply means that the sources are no longer available. And it would not be the Formula One website that would be cited, it would be each video individually. WesleyBranton ( talk) 04:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • See? If no other method of getting sources is available, then no reliable third-party sources are available to help the page pass GNG. Also, as the F1 website is the only site that has the videos (and the ones that make the videos), read WP:PRIMARY, which says:

Although I believe your statement on the other videos originally being there, no other source has covered it in compensation. As a result, the article is terribly based on just one primary source, which is not at all a good thing on Wikipedia. Speaking of one source, WP:ONESOURCE#Lone source published by the article's subject would be a read. You might claim that it's "each video individually", which, then again, leads to WP:PRIMARY. For your second statement, other stuff exists, that's why. For your third statement: ha ha, no. Erasing info from the public happens with every article deleted. Zappa O Mati 05:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • For the life of me I just can't understand why the information cannot just be moved to the season page. There ARE people who use this information. In fact over 4000 people in the last 90 even though this information hasn't changed for months. I don't know why it cannot be moved.<br. WesleyBranton ( talk) 14:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • In response to Falcadore's note to our article: "creating a bunch of "See also"s does not cure the article being an orphan. The article has to connect to other topics, not say - come look at me here!", these links were placed on the correct season pages and anchored to the corresponding year. The articles See Also sections were added to WERE related to the topic.
    WesleyBranton ( talk) 05:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is an article of solely fan interest, and at that they must have to be really extreme F1 fans to even drill down to music in racing videos to even hold interest in this. Comparing to this, we don't have articles about the songs used in the highlights compilations for Inside the NFL, the former non-E/I iteration of This Week in Baseball or any of the various European football leagues which have weekly highlights shows with current music bedded into them because it's a topic barely of interest to much of anybody. Nate • ( chatter) 05:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Another question that I have is, why this page is just now being considered for deletion? This page has been around since 2012, so if there was something wrong with it, why was it not removed then? Instead, now you are deciding to attack this page. Why? WesleyBranton ( talk) 15:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • What a bunch of BS! Whenever you search anything about the F1 race edits in Google, this page is the second or first result. How can you say no one knows about it? Especially when over 4000 people know enough about it to visit it!
    This article IS relevant. I keep trying to add information about it in the Formula One page, but people keep removing it. It's almost like people are ignoring that the F1 Race Edits are real and that actual people know about them.
    This page is being treated as if it were fake! WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That is extremely common. Wikipedia pages are almost always one of the first two results. Also, I'm not saying no one knows about it, I'm saying no one gives a fuck about it until now. Also, you seem to be missing my point about WP:POPULARPAGE. Just because a page is visited by many does NOT make it an encyclopedic topic. Zappa O Mati 17:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • LISTEN This page has sources listed and is no longer an orphan because the link has been added to the Formula One article. There are no longer multiple issues with this article. According to you, the only category that this work falls into in the reasons for deletion is its nobility. Really though nobility is an opinion. Just because you don't feel that this page is important doesn't mean that this other users' opinions.

If you don't want these charts to have its own category, fine. Then at least let us add the information to the correct seasons. That's all I am asking.
WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • I think you should listen as well. Notability may be the only category that the page "falls into", bur it is not an opinion, but rather, a guideline. A policy. Pages must be asserted by multiple reliable sources that includes sources not connected to the subject. The article may have its problems solved, but notability is what determines whether or not this page should stay. It's not the popularity/visitors, not the orphan status, but rather, its notability. It MUST pass the general notability guideline in order to be able to stay. Zappa O Mati 17:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This article DOES fit the guidelines. Here is the breakdown:

  • Significant coverage - The introduction covers a history and information about significance
  • Reliable - There are multiple sources, not only from the F1 website
  • Sources - There are multiple secondary sources
  • Independent of the subject - This page was not made by the F1 and is NOT advertising
  • Presumed - We are working on adding more information about the Race Edits as you can see from the introduction change

WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

No it does not. There are sources, but they are not RELIABLE SOURCES. Although Google Trends may be an exception (not too sure about ShareMyPlaylist), RC Tech and Not606 are forums, which are almost forbidden by policy. An example of a reliable source would be the networks that broadcast the edits' websites (i.e. Sky Sports). Also, for "presumed", you may have added info to the lead, but they are also sourced by the F1 page as well, which doesn't count as a secondary source. Zappa O Mati 18:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't know what to say! The videos are EXCLUSIVE to the Formula One website, therefore there are no other legal sources with the videos. I have sourced what I can. And ShareMyPlaylist IS a source. Why wouldn't it be? WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
We are not a shoppers guide. Just because you may find the information useful does not mean it needs a Wikipedia article. Just as we do not include full lyrics for songs, we do not need a list of songs featured in a set of F1-related videos. The359 ( Talk) 18:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This is NOT a shoppers guide. The MUST be included on the F1 seasons pages because they are basically the theme songs for the race that year. Soundtracks are included and this MUST be included, because it is the "soundtrack" of the F1 season! WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
There is no justification for why this must be included. These are not soundtracks, this is not a movie, there is nothing official or related to Formula One as a sport that this article or these songs relates to. Shouting about it wont make it magically notable. And no, the WP:SPA IP address is not right, this article has absolutely nothing to do with articles on songs on Wikipedia. The fact that both discuss music is their only relation. We don't delete songs if they are notable. This article is not notable. That is consistency. The359 ( Talk) 19:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That's where you are wrong. These race edits are produced by Formula One not a third party. These are official and exclusive videos. Therefore, this is related to the media part of Formula One. It is important to remember that Formula One is not only a sport, but also a business and should not be considered only for the sport aspect of the franchise. WesleyBranton ( talk) 20:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I did add the link and the section to the media coverage, BUT it fits in with the topic. They have agreed to allow it to stay in the article because a user changed it back, but then undid that because they felt that it belongs. WesleyBranton ( talk) 02:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Hm, it appears there's a box now stating they're actually moving there. Looks like they've officially moved, and are nearing completion of the move. Should this be closed soon? Zappa O Mati 03:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. A combination of FANCRUFT and ILIKEIT. It appears to be nothing more than a list of songs so that people have a resource for making their own playlists. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 03:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:N and is defines pointless. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Unbeleivable! There is nothing wrong with this article, or even with topic that it cannot be merged or just kept. There are other pages on wiki with f------ child nudity (illegal) and this nice page is getting deletted? That is what wrong with wikipedia. These nice people are saving wikis a-- by writing (basicaly doing everything) all of thes articles for free, then mods and admins sit in their nerd caves and delete articles. The people are the only thing that keeps wikipedia from shutting down. Without them, wiki would be F-----! That's why I stopped using wiki years ago. I never use it at all. I workd on an article for f------ almost a year and then got stuck in the same situation that wes is in. the only reason im on here is because i saw a google+ post about this page and wantes to help save it. Everyone should just f--- wikipedia an take away all of the articles. Then wiki would be in deep s--- and maybe treat the users bettr. AND IF I COME BACK TOMORROW AND SEE THAT MY POST HAA BEEN EDIT OR DELETED, ILL BE F------ FURIOUS!!!!! ps. Sory the post is above the rest. Mh tablet no let me scroll the wiki ediyor. Feel free to move post down (MUST BE MOVED IN FULL) AND JST BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING DOES NOT MEAN THE ARTICLE CANNOT REMAIN HER AS WELL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.73.28 ( talk • contribs)
  • Just so you know, I didn't write this. It was put on yesterday night by an IP user. It was deleted, but I brought it back and censored it because it is bias to remove posts in a debate like this. Although, there is nothing in the Terms of Use that prohibits the use of profanity. WesleyBranton ( talk) 17:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Yes that IP is the same as before. I live in a duplex. The IP user is a person that I asked to write something for this user. We share internet and split the cost at the end of the month. For some reason my browser logged me out and it displayed the IP of the internet connection. If you are insinuating that I am the other user, you would be wrong. I just share the same internet. WesleyBranton ( talk) 18:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 10:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Lewis McAdam

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 02:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spec Sharp. The Bushranger One ping only 10:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sing Sharp

Sing Sharp (  | 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 moderately cited academic project/paper (~250 GS cites). Might be worth merging to Spec Sharp as an off-shoot/variant, but I don't think it's wp:notable enough by itself. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 01:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes, a merge into Spec Sharp seems sensible! Snori ( talk) 02:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sarah Marince

Sarah Marince (  | 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 person is a completely minor musical figure, who has accomplished nothing to merit a wikipedia page. Xapxapxap ( talk) 00:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Moniem Suliman AtTroun

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

Fails WP:NOTE despite the reference from Amnesty International-- Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) ( talk) 00:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 ( talk · contribs) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sybil Gibson Higley

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

This article appears to assert notability by inheritance from Charles Fritz Juengling, but notability is not inherited. It relies almost exclusively on sources that are primary and not independent. The substantive claim to encyclopaedic notability is... elusive to say the least. A genealogist best known for contributions to the genealogy field, apparently, but in the end these contributions seem not to be significant enough to inspire independent discussion of the subject herself. Guy ( Help!) 00:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • delete fails SCHOLAR, GNG. Genealogy contributions do not appear to cross the bar into "significance" required for notability. Library holdings do not indicate significance as an author sufficient to achieve notability-- Only a handful of libraries. Google scholar does not show significant cites. Sourcing for article does not show significant coverage sufficient for notability. Did not find anything at Gale. Unable to locate significant coverage. Dloh cierekim 01:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment there is some information on her work as a genealogist - and there are notable genealogists. I think the nominator's comment about being the aunt to Charles Fritz Juengling is entirely irrelevant since the article doesn't claim primary notability based on that. It would help if nominators could discuss the article and its content and not a fantasy version of the article in order to claim deletion via WP:NOTINHERITED which is WP:NOTPOLICY anyway. Let's focus on the article content and the notability guidelines. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 14:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Higley has made contributions to the genealogy field, including heading libraries, writing books and being used as a source over many years. Also, notability is independent of Charles Fritz Juengling. That is a small piece of info that was included in the family section, not using CFJ for notability. • Kbabej ( talk) 06:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green C 17:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Sindee Jennings

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP without edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 04:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Liza del Sierra

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without substantive explanation or article improvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reliable indicator of notability. That is especially true with pornography where floods of matches are common. How many of these 94 million hits are not porn sites? Very few from the samples that I got. As for PORNBIO, a single nomination that is not scene-related is not enough. Being named by a magazine as one of the 100 hottest porn stars (right now) is not a significant achievement. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the record, I checked that the article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, which is currently at AfD, does not contain any indications of notability either.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Rode Vasyl Harytonovych

AfDs for this article:
Rode Vasyl Harytonovych (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. Article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline ( WP:N, WP:BIO) -- Ilyaroz ( talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2014_February_8&oldid=1142629149"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE