Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 17 June	19 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necati Yılmaz

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD per WP:ATHLETE, no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league (Fenerbahce PAF is a youth team, and not a first team. This remains valid. Five years may have passed, but he still has not played in the Turkish Super League or received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yılmaz has not played in the Turkish top flight, so I suspect the article fails NFOOTBALL. A look at online Turkish-language sources indicates that coverage in reliable sources is not significant, but rather routine information about his signings and loans. Jogurney (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Jones

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. I don't see enough coverage to pass WP:GNG--Yankees10 23:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing noteworthy here. Spanneraol (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assertions fall short of WP:NBASEBALL, either a WP:TOOSOON or WP:NEVERWILLBE. Boogerpatrol (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berat Çetinkaya

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that The coverage in the article appears demonstrating passing WP:GNG. However, the sources listed are routine sports coverage insufficient for general notability. The two in-line citations are routine transfer announcements, the external link a statistical player profile. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The coverage of this person is in fact in-depth. In regards to sports coverage, WP:ROUTINE states it is meant for "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Of course the coverage is well beyond "sports scores" and therefore not "routine sports coverage."--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list of what is routine coverage is by no means exhaustive. Just as an example, WP:NSPORT defines player profiles as routine, and the fact that transfer announcements do not amount to significant coverage is a long-standing consensus. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no. WP:NSPORT says no such thing. If you'd like to change WP:GNG or WP:SPORT to change the definition of "routine coverage", you need to make your case on the respective talk pages, not invent your own criteria in an AfD. And besides, these aren't just "stats" but third-party articles on this person. --Oakshade (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And besides what's in the article, there's also more coverage. [1][2]--Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, this is the first time you've commented on a football related afd, so I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with the relevant case history before you accuse me of any impropriety. By comparison, I've nominated some 450 football BLP's for deletion, and if haven't commented, I've at least looked at pretty much every afd listed at WP:FOOTY over the three years. When I say that transfer news, which is all you've presented so far, does not amount significant coverage is an established consensus, it's not because it suits me, but because it's a rule, albeit an unwritten one, that I've seen consistently applied at afd. You'll find some recent examples here and here. You also seem to have misunderstood my comment regarding WP:NSPORT. I apologise if it wasn't clear. The comment refers to the external link in the article, which WP:NSPORT defines as routine coverage per the following: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion.. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of "trivial coverage" including "listings in database sources" don't apply to the articles on this person since they're beyond the scope of "listings in database sources." --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It applies to the profile on TFF database, and that source only. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first source present in the article is a brief (less than 70 words) report of the subject's transfer from one club to another; it supplies his name, birth year, playing position, how many games he played for his previous relegated club, name of new club, and suggests interest from other clubs (unnamed) in signing him. WP:GNG explanatory note 1 gives extreme examples of the different between in-depth and trivial coverage; the content of that first source is pretty close to the trivial end of that spectrum. Explanatory note 5 reminds us that as well as databases, announcements and the like, "minor news stories" are also among "examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined". The second source is an agency piece reproducing the club's formal stock-exchange announcement of the player's loan transfer, and is neither in-depth nor independent of the subject. Enough significant, non-trivial independent coverage of the subject to pass the general notability guideline may exist, but for a subject who doesn't pass the relevant subject-specific notability guideline, its existence needs to be demonstrated. As yet, it hasn't. By the time the subject passes WP:NFOOTY, hopefully there'll be enough coverage to write an informative article about him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't know whether the Turkish second division is a fully-pro league (so I don't know if the article satisfies NFOOTBALL), but if we just look at online Turkish-language media coverage, it doesn't appear that this article satisfies the GNG. There are many articles in CNN Turk, Milliyet, etc, that cover his signing for Beşiktaş, but I don't think any are significant coverage of his career (they only include a brief mention of his participation at the Toulon tournament or with Sakaryaspor). There are also articles discussing his loan to Adana Demirspor, but again these don't appear to be significant coverage either. Jogurney (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boronia Boys

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

Fails WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Assuming I can find sources for both, and that's an if, would it be worthwhile to merge both the first and second films into one article? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried finding sources for both this and its sequel, but there just isn't enough to merit an article for either of them separately, let alone together. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is very sparse. I was not able to find any more than is already identified in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burns (actor, born 1977)

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

Someone has really been making a lot of articles related to the now deleted for failing GNG director Timothy Spanos. Here is another. I believe this actor fails WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per TOO SOON. Yes, WP:GNG is failed, but when it is, we look further in the notability guidelines. While this actor's roles can pretty much be verified, no independent sources have taken note of he or his work. As we have no verifiability that his roles are significant to his projects, and even though there are many, he fails notability guidelines for actors. Maybe when reliable sources take notice, we can too. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject's body of work does not justify a separate article according to sources. More independent sources or new work may improve notability. --Stormbay (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is verifiably a working actor, but not one that meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No prejudice to recreation if his future work garners notice. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malone (cartoonist)

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

Related to another recently deleted subject (Fong She Mei) Having a hard time finding English sources, and the Chinese and Japanese articles have no citations either. I think he might fail WP:GNG. But, perhaps a comic book person might know more! SarahStierch (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear in the Lambiek Comiclopedia. That doesn't mean this person is not-notable automatically, but it contains over 12 thousand world cartoonists and 34 specifically from Hong Kong, so that absence, coupled with a lack of sources of any kind establishing notability, leads me to vote delete. Update: Also nothing in these books about Hong Kong cartooning. Gamaliel (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Also it is unreferenced, I can't see that the one link provided verifies anything about him, which I don't think is sufficient for a WP:BLP. It may even be eligible for WP:BLPPROD as it contains "no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography".Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Chef Eliana

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The sources provided are not significant or robust enough to prove notability. User226 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was thinking of suggesting a redirect to Dianne de Las Casas, her mother's article, but I'm seeing the same puffery and nonsense going on there as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned that article up as well, but I'm seeing a distinct lack of notability. I'm also suspecting that the person who created the articles is involved with the two of them somehow, as the name suggests as such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just isn't enough coverage out there to show that she's ultimately notable. She had an appearance on the Wendy Williams show making a dish, which is nice, but that's not really enough to give notability enough to merit her own article. I would suggest a merge to her mother's article, but there's a distinct lack of notability there as well and I've opened up an AfD for the mother as well. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dianne de Las Casas) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a search on the editor name that's creating these articles and found evidence to suggest that the editor is indeed Dianne de Las Casas. I've left a note on her page cautioning her against creating and editing articles about herself and her daughter (if this is her), as this can be seen as self-promotion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elsag Datamat

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

Article has no reliable sources or references and is written for advertisement. Tyros1972 Talk 02:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a machine-translation. which makes it hard to follow the substance (the idea of a firm being subject to a "totalitarian takeover bid" is interesting). Much of the article text concerns the long history of a parent company which may or may not be notable. But the subject here is the spun-off electronics arm which seems to have been passed between multiple owners (and names) between 1969-2011. I have linked the Italian WP article but it provides little in terms of active WP:RS. While the venture clearly existed, I am not seeing evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability in its own right; it is mentioned in the Finmeccanica article which seems sufficient here. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not written for advertisement purposes but exclusively historical.robyc73 (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.123.105 (talk) [reply]

Comment there are four references in the Italian Wikipedia article. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of which is secondary: a Computerworld article which is no longer accessible. AllyD (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References like that can 404, but still be found via archives, as I did here.[3] Its why we do not delete broken links because it is possible to recover them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, ChrisGualtieri. From reading the Google Translate, it is a news story about the 2010 reorganisation mentioned in the article, union fears for jobs, etc. To me, that is passing coverage ("brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business") which doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 20:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Stop to Relist!There are two people for keeping and one for delete,so close this discussion to keep this article.Robyc73 (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Robyc73 (talk) has removed the AfD 3 times after being warned about it. He obviously does not understand this process, wiki and clearly has a conflict of interest. Tyros1972 Talk 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robyc73, discussions on Wikipedia are not votes. The outcome will be decided by considering the strength of the arguments, not by counting numbers of comments. In any case, you are mistaken in the numbers you quote, as Tyros1972 and AllyD have both argued for deletion. Also, I am striking out your "keep", because it seems that the earlier "keep" comment, with your signature on it, was from you, despite being added without logging in to your account. Posting two bold "keeps" might give the misleading impression that there are more people saying "keep" than there really are. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing anywhere to suggest that this business satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. There are no references in the article, and the source cited by ChrisGualtieri is no more than a brief report in a trade journal of a business reorganisation. Nor have I found evidence of notability anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Considering the arguments given for "keep": (1) Robyc73's first comment merely says that the article was not written for advertising purposes. Whether that is so or not, that that does not address the lack of evidence of notability. (2) ChrisGualtieri's post, which very helpfully tells us that a source cited in the Italian Wikipedia article can be found in an archive, but makes no attempt whatever to assess the value of the source, or explain why the article should be kept. (3) Robyc73's second post is apparently based on the mistaken belief that an AfD is a vote. I would respectfully suggest to the administrator who assesses this discussion that none of these "keep" arguments carries any weight at all in establishing notability for the subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Melodrama. L Faraone 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tear jerker

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

Literally a list from TV Tropes that makes no sense out of context. TKK ^{bark !} 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Pretty clearly just a term from TV Tropes redefined here. Even if it weren't a trope moved to Wikipedia, it would still just be a definition with examples, which is dangerously close to falling afoul of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. It's also close to meeting A10 speedy deletion qualifications because of its relation to tragedy, if it doesn't meet them. Chri$topher 21:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~possibly WP:CSD#G12 as well, since it's copied from but not attributed to TV Tropes (I checked their copyright licensing stuff - it's CC BY-NC-SA 3.0, which isn't compatible per WP:COMPLIC).~~ Otherwise, WP:NOTDICT. Ansh666 21:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the copyvio stuff, leaving...nothing. Ansh666 01:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no sense, and even contradicts itself. A real article on the topic would be called Sadness in drama or something like that. Maybe we should just be ~~happy~~ content with Tragedy for now. BayShrimp (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Melodrama. The term is ubiquitous, mostly with respect to films. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Redirect to Melodrama. They are the same thing. BayShrimp (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. closing properly - was withdrawn by nominator Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTI Home Video

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close - withdrawn by nominator with no objections

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

Having a part in producing many films means that a company is likely notable, but this company only releases films to DVD. I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in Miami Herald Home Media Magazine - a news search brings up other hits on the company. I don't think this is anything to do with Music Theatre International. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Well, I'm fine with those two references. This can be closed. SL93 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ATAXIA CURE

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

This article is titled "ataxia cure" yet it opens by explicitly saying there is no cure for ataxia. It appears to be a veiled attempt to promote the Frenkel Exercises article. That article is shaky in and of itself but I'll leave it to others to check if it warrants deletion. I'm not sure if this "article" qualifies as G11, A3, or if it should be turned into a redirect, so I'm nominating it for community consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC) (edited 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)))[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same editor and have almost identical wording:

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

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

Delete as WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Ataxia#Treatment. Though there are some new developments regarding potential cures New hope in hunt for ataxia cure, any such info can be added there. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KuyaBriBri, please say in what way the Frenkel Exercises article is shaky?

Yes, the references to "cures" in the ataxia articles is to ~~promote~~ call attention to the Frenkel Exercises. Frenkel Exercises are entirely different from the http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-hope-in-hunt-for-ataxia-cure-20100210-nsgm.html article.

Frenkel Exercises are available to everyone, free, and shown to work. Stem cell implantation may or may not work, is expensive, and is available only to those with lots of money.

Those unfortunate enough to suffer from cerebellar ataxia may be searching for a way to improve their condition only to be told they will have to wait until stem cell therapy is widely available, and even then that it's unproven and risky.

This is inhumane and unacceptable given that Frenkel Exercises have been proven to work, at least in some cases. Fletcherbrian 01:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This discussion page is about the three pages you created with "ataxia cure" or something related in the title. I have not and do not presently intend to nominate the Frenkel Exercises article for deletion. Please keep any discussion on this page to discussion on the three "cure" pages. I will gladly respond to your question on Frenkel Exercises on either your user talk page or on the article talk page when I have time to formulate a complete response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KuyaBriBri, I have already conceded that the three pages "ataxia cure" you refer to were created in order to direct attention to Frenkel Exercises. Fletcherbrian 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: No cures for it. Created in order to promote another article. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, on the contrary, in some cases there *is* a cure for ataxia. Yes, I concede that the articles were created to call attention to Frenkel Exercises.

On the question of cure: if for example a patient's ataxia is caused by vitamin B12 deficiency, administration of B12 *will* cure it. Fletcherbrian 13:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no content, and redundant with Ataxia#Treatment, as Gene93k correctly notices. I also invite Fletcherbrian to have a long, deep look at the fact that Wikipedia is not a propaganda platform to advocate medical treatments or anything else. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, Cyclopia, I've had a long hard look at your link. One of the first things I noticed is that you changed the name of the link that would appear on your post to include the word "propaganda".

The actual name of the link is "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion".

Propaganda is a rather dirty word.

You really shouldn't imply that I am using propaganda.

I am simply trying to help those who may have suffered cerebellar strokes, for instance, to help themselves.

No soapbox, no promotion. Let alone propaganda. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said yourself that it was promotion. "Yes, I concede that the articles were created to call attention to Frenkel Exercises." SL93 (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, "Call attention to" is not "promotion".

For example, if your mother is ill, you will possibly call the attention of your doctor to her illness.

You aren't promoting her illness.

Do you understand the difference now? Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're comparing an article about a type of treatment to someone's mother being ill? People don't write articles about their mother being ill. :/ SL93 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, To repeat, "Call attention to" is not "promotion".

Do you understand yet? Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is in this case. They can both be interchangeable. I find it hard to believe that someone would think that Wikipedia is an alright place to post those ataxia "articles" that points to an article that in no way passes WP:Notability. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made it easier for me because you used the word promote in one of your earlier comments. "Yes, the references to "cures" in the ataxia articles is to promote the Frenkel Exercises." SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I should have used "call attention to".

I've changed it.

Thank you for your help. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just to repeat, as previously stated, there are cures for some types of ataxia (eg those caused by B12 deficiency).

Contrary to what you stated: "No cures for it."

Thank you again. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, your strikethrough edit above is fair enough. Cheers. Fletcherbrian (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcherbrian, whatever you want to call it -attention call, advocacy, whatever- that is not what Wikipedia is about. If you want to call attention to something, use your own website. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ~~I have collapsed the above discussion as it is not germane to deletion of the three "articles" in question.~~ I repeat, this discussion is not about the Frenkel Exercises article. Please have this discussion at Talk:Frenkel Exercises, or if anyone believes that article merits deletion, create a new AfD for that article. Any discussion about the Frenkel Exercises article that occurs on this discussion page does nothing to help the three "articles" that are actually nominated for deletion here and furthering such discussion is a waste of time and energy on your part. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But I was talking about those three articles. I said that they are only a means of promotion which means that they should be deleted. SL93 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I have retracted the collapse. I still believe Fletcherbrian was attempting to use this AfD page to defend the main Frenkel Exercises article, so the rest of my comment above still stands. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wasn't trying to defend the Frenkel article. But I was trying to bring attention to the article for the public good. Cheers. Fletcherbrian (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Clearly, there are some forms of ataxia that can be cured, not merely ameliorated. The article should not be deleted.

See: British Medical Journal report on B12 and ataxia

B12 and ataxia

magnesium and the brain

magnesium deficiency, and many other sources almost too numerous to list.

Fletcherbrian (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- We already have an article that covers that, as pointed above. (I took the liberty of putting lines of your comment together, for readibility. Hope you don't mind.) --Cyclopia ^talk 12:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me of the liberty you have taken. I have undone your edit of my post. I oppose your view on its readability. Please leave the layout my post as it is. Thank you for your indulgence. Fletcherbrian (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, sorry if it bothered you. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three as promotional and duplicative of the existing article. One is enough. Fletcherbrian, you are not helping your cause here with your continued advocacy. The point is not whether these things "work" or "don't work," or "cure" or "don't cure". There already is an article for the Frenkel Exercises. You're not allowed to spam Wikipedia with multiple pages saying the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - clear WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Ataxia#Treatment, nothing to merge. Zad68 01:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three: as having no content and being blatantly and explicitly promotional. Honestly, why is this "discussion" still open? Ravenswing 05:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ravenswing, "promotional" is "a term used in marketing". I am not marketing anything. With the best will in the world, you should use the correct words to describe that which you are criticizing. However, I am trying to bring attention to Frenkel exercises. They are not for sale, they are free. Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Promotional" is indeed a term used in marketing. There are indeed many terms used in marketing, but as has already been explained to you, Wikipedia does not bind the term exclusively to making money. You are seeking to promote this other subject. That's against Wikipedia rules, period. Ravenswing 21:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material is promotional. The discussion has taken place and an admin needs to close this subject sooner than later. --Stormbay (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to delete this article but it seems I am not allowed to. Somebody explain please. Fletcherbrian (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: it's not "your" article, but Wikipedia's article, and articles get deleted under formal guidelines. Normally an article that otherwise fails retention guidelines will be deleted if the creating editor wants it deleted, but in this particular case, the AfD will close very soon and the article will be promptly deleted. Ravenswing 04:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Ta Chuck. Fletcherbrian (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer The formatting may be a bit messy, but I think all participants, including the creator, have !voted to delete. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all as unreferenced nonsense. ^King Jakob _C2 17:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Safiel (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odhava

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

Fails WP:GNG, a Google search only turns up information about its post office. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and by long-standing consensus all verifiable populated places are considered notable. Since this place has a post office, it's verifiable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if there's a post office, it's an officially recognized, populated place, and so should be kept by WP:NGEO. Needs to be sourced, though. Ansh666 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Google Maps shows it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a village. SL93 (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and an admonishment to the nominator who failed WP:BEFORE - the only thing wrong with the article was a lack of sources, but alas you found one including a reference to a post office. But, rather than adding the source and recognizing it met WP:GEO, you went ahead and nominated it for deletion. A repetition of such disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate Media Company

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

The company does not have the support to be considered notable. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article clearly needs a lot of work, but the company is notable, and controls a large number of important UK publications Jasonfward (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a poor stub, but the BBC magazines had a high profile, before the BBC withdrew from many of its non-broadcasting activities, following complaints that they were engaged in unfair competition, being licence fee funded. The article certainly needs singificnat expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with both comments above, the company has become very powerful in the UK publishing industry so to delete the article would I think be a little rash. It definitely needs drastic improvements however. Aw16 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Manly

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

I'm listing this here at AfD per the request of a user claiming to be Keith Manly. The user has repeatedly tagged it as a speedy, but since there is some potential notability asserted and other users have edited the article, there's no clear cut case for a speedy here. I don't have any true opinion one way or another, although I am having a bit of trouble finding sources. Editors should note that he is under the name "Keith Manly" as well as "Keith E. Mann". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to also state that while the article claims that Manly produced, directed, and wrote Evolution - Why Bother?, this book asserts that it was done by the American Institute of Biological Sciences. I know that they hire other people to help, but I can't really find anything to back up that Manly is this director other than his primary sources. If I could find one source on say, the AIBS site that backed him up as the director then this would go a long way towards establishing notability, if anyone can find this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the user can provide proof that he is Mr Manly to an administrator, then it ought be speedily deleted as per his request. Not sure why he would want his entry deleted, but I believe it should be done as a courtesy if that's what he wants. He doesn't appear to be particularly notable and there aren't any decent references anyway. Wouldn't be a great loss. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE.Boogerpatrol (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WilliamH (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham W Phillips

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

Article only has one independent WP:RS, This is Exeter which is mainly about a murder case and mentions a book the subject intended to publish on it, the rest are either written by the subject or do not verify the statements cited to them. I can't find any other RS coverage of him or the book (which as far as I can tell was published only as an Amazon e-book). January (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a self-promotional autobiography. There also appears to be a bit of a walled garden of articles related (see for example Murder of Barry Pring) to this individual created and maintained by User:GrahamWPhillips' sockfarm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NorthLondoner). I don't see any evidence from independent reliable sources that the subject of this biography meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Deli nk (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OC#TRIVIA The article makes reference to trivial issues, such as the subject's experience as an English teacher in Kiev. WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE WP:OC#OPINION It appears the subject has written this article, which reads like a Linkedin page WP:SOAP, making unsubstantiated claims regarding his supposedly hard hitting and controversial reporting. Also, the book is clearly being advertised through the page. There is no RS to its supposed announcement, most source are from the subject's blog or articles, questioning the relevance of the whole entry WP:IMPORTANCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosso123 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion - I'm the subject here, so wouldn't usually get involved as per WP:COI. But these allegations of sock puppetry being made against me are a joke, and totally untrue. I can only suspect the work of someone I've had a go at in something I've written. About this page, I've never made an edit to it myself - though of course when someone creates a page on you here, you ask friends to keep an eye on it. But that's as far as it's gone with me. My main priority is working on the case of Barry Pring, however after I attempted to create a page on him here and was told by other users I shouldn't do that given my involvement, I've concentrated efforts on my own site and other media. As for this page here being deleted, if it doesn't meet wikipedia criteria then delete it as with any other page. I'm not going to get involved in arguments on here when it seems like there's something ulterior going on. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- No opinion - part 2 - This will be the last I'll say on this, am not going to 'argue against wikipedia', no one can win that. I am going to try to assume good faith, and that these ridiculous sock puppet accusations against me are simply a mistake. As I understand from reading wikipedia articles, there is substantial scope for human error or erroneous interpretation in the WP:SPI investigation process. However, I also note the account above was created solely to vote for deletion of the page on me, so there are undoubtedly those with an agenda against. That said, as for deletion of the page, it's quite simple - if there isn't sufficient WP:RS, then delete just like anything else. I will continue using wikipedia, under my own real name - which I requested my username changed to so as to be transparent. GrahamWPhillips (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came across the protestations of innocence by GrahamWPhillips and other accused editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GrahamWPhillips, and spent some time looking into the edit histories, but instead of disproving it I ended up being convinced by the evidence. The biography is therefore mostly an autobiography. I agree that it lacks independent citations and the subject therefore lacks notability. – Fayenatic London 20:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt) -- Almost everything in the article indicates to me that he is merely a NN jounralist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Arsenal experiments

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

These experiments, if they happened at all, appear to have no coverage in reliable secondary sources and thus the topic is not sufficiently notable for WP. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Other editors have found good sources (thanks everyone). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I did not write this article, I was working to clean it up when I saw this. The experiments did happen and are sufficiently documented in NAS books going back to the 1980s as well as more recent academic books and memoirs. There was a lot of rubbish in the article, including a big confusion between these experiments, Project MKUltra and Project 112. There is still some, but it's not as hopeless as Operation Red Hat was, mainly because there is no edit warring going on. (Project 112 is in a similar situation where the amount of clean up required is not too great.) 86.121.18.17 (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs to be improved, but I see plenty of reliable sources, including from both the government and NBC News. A good topic and useful article. Rationale for deletion is incorrect. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve Article is referenced, incorrect rationale as per above. Kaini (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Machin series. L Faraone 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Definitives (British postage stamps)

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

This stamp issue is part of the long-running Machin series already well covered in that article. A separate article is not necessary for each issue of new values. No assertion of notability and not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Machin series as was supposedly proposed a month ago, although I find no evidence that it was. No sufficient notability established and completely unsourced. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be merged as there is nothing worth merging. There have been hundreds of similar new stamps caused by increases in postage rates since this series started. A simple deletion would be easier. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be merged, then redirecting to Machin series is still a better option than flat-out deletion. If you delete it, then someone who goes to search for it will be faced with a red link and a "similar options" list. If you redirect it, they at least go straight to a page. It's my personal belief that the majority of the time, there's something to which you should merge or redirect instead of delete. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but realistically I don't know who will ever search for that particular phrase, but I don't oppose a redirect. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same old, same old stuff. very slight possibility for a redirect to Machin series but hardly worth it. No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machin series not notable enough for its own article but worthy enough to be redirected instead of leaving redlink. Jguy _Talk^Done 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect -- The intricacies of postage rates do not seem notable to me. The postage rates of the UK Royal Mail might usefully be covered in a single general article. We do not need an article on the implementation of every change in poitage rates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This series of stamps is non-notable. I would not be against merging or redirecting if someone felt like doing that. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete following relisting. Peterkingiron's suggestion for modifying List of international airports in Canada may have merit. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian international airports without United States border preclearance

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

This seems to be an unnecessary list. We already have List of international airports in Canada and a list of Canadian airports that have preclearance in United States border preclearance. Furthermore, this list appears to be incomplete, since it's not clear which airports are defined as "international airports" for the purpose of these articles. Edge3 (talk) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I created this list from a category's contents as a result of closing a CFD; see discussion here from 2009. postdlf (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but a possible Merge - into List of international airports in Canada (as as {{Collapse}}d list _or_ simply a *Note* in the current list). The distinction is so minimal that it does not require a compleatly separate Article. It would be foolish to expand upon this idea and include a list for EVERY country that Canada does not have border preclearance with... Canadian international airports without Peruvian border preclearance, Canadian international airports without United Kingdom border preclearance, etc etc etc Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Delete per NOTDIRECTORY. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage where this sort of information would be useful and appreciated. --TKK ^{bark !} 20:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' not encyclopaedic, of no or very little interest to anybody other than, possibly, the author.--Petebutt (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a random fact about some random airports is not encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The arguemnt about UK or Peru preclearance is irrelevant, becuase these countries are not adjacent to USA. I do not think that the list is useful. On the other hand, a list of airports with preclearance might be worth having. However the best way of doing that would be to add a further column with this information to List of international airports in Canada, no doubt linked to the preclearance article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ego (spirituality)

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

A sea of original research and editor synthesis, this comes across as a hash of personal essays and bits cribbed from a variety of primary sources (most prominently Eckhard Tolle) rather than a coherent, single topic. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to have to oppose deletion here. This is certainly not a wonderful or comprehensive article, but the topic is legitimate and at least some of the material would be usable for constructing a better article. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very legitimate mainstream issue. 150 people a day visited. However atheists just don't get it.Drg55 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drg55, please stop using the number of people who have visited an article in your arguments about the quality of articles and whether edits should stand. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and the fact that some number of people visited an article does not mean that they all read all of it or that they were pleased with what they read. How can the problems raised by Mangoe be addressed? MartinPoulter (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MartinPoulter. View count has nothing to do with quality. Bots, article reviewers, and people who see a bad article being discussed will all drive up the numbers. The heart of the issue is that the article reads more like a blog post than an encyclopedic article. Andrew³²⁷ 20:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that 5000 people a month find this an interesting topic and they all had a chance to edit it. My contribution may have had some flaws but it got deleted after I made edits to another page, Bare Faced Messiah. I would hope that people would allow those with an inclination to the subject matter to have the main say and not go after other editors whose views they don't share. I don't take Ignore all rules as open slathers, rather that I find excessive use of rules against people whose views others are trying to suppress. Ignore all rules is about creating an interesting encyclopedia and rhetorical prose can achieve that. Frankly there are three positions, egocentric, godcentric and balance between the two. I thought this was both logical and moral to add in this (sane) position. And then I barely say "OK I'll have a go at rewriting it", and someone wants to take down the page altogether.Drg55 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are Wikipedia articles which get thousands of hits every single day and which are very poor. Only a small proportion of readers are contributors. You can't take those thousands of views as any kind of endorsement or statement of quality. I don't think this is at all about sharing or not sharing personal views. Our personal views on these topics might motivate us to write about them, but are unimportant in deciding how or what Wikipedia articles should be written. Wikipedia is not for original research, no matter what view it promotes. You're not helping your case by speculating about the private views of people ("atheists just don't get it") who question whether this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tear down and rebuild. This article should be completely started over, possibly even as a stub. The subject appears to meet GNG, but its current version is too full of original research to save. Andrew³²⁷ 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, the article could be deleted and the references to specific religious beliefs be incorporated into their respective articles. Andrew³²⁷ 20:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Some well-intentioned person was obviously trying to explain the ego's relationship to a broad range of spiritual influences, but they were unaware of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mangoe and luckylouie. No predjudice against recreation as a non-OR discussion of the topic. I do think that it has merit (a discussion of ego as it relates to various spiritual traditions). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims of synthesis and OR are unsupported by evidence or specifics. And, even if there are difficulties of this sort, no cogent reason is given why they cannot be better addressed by ordinary editing. As an example of a paper which discusses such material, and so demonstrates its notability, see Selfhood and Identity in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Warden (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the references are citing directly the person quoted (WP:OR), the other half are citing numerous works of a single fringe occultist. Get rid of that material and there isn't enough left to edit around. I don't dispute the possibility of a legitimate article being written on the subject, but if it is to be done, it needs to be done from scratch. Agricolae (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Personal essay based on OR and synth, and editor's own interpretaion of primary sources. Lots of lumping oranges and apples together as if unrelated concepts that concidently have the same or similar names have anything to do with each other. Whatever synthesis there is certainly does not come from reliable independent secondary sources. Nothing worth saving or merging, and IF there is a coherent topic here, of which I remain to be convinced, this article would not serve as a useful starting point. Not exactly convinced that reliable secondary sources will ever be found, though. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religion is not science, it is wholly what people believe or construe. Therefore there are no "reliable sources" a source is ok in so far that a point of view exists. So even a carpenter from Nazareth can have a point of view. Probably accepted points of view are the ones not to be trusted. However when it comes to giving evaluations of other points of view would a rock and roll journalist know anything about religion, or a journalist who just wrote a biography of a sleeze bag pornographer (Miller), or a Jewish psychologist who can't get his facts right in a book about Israel, or a sociologist who believes in demonic cults - the sort of sources I have been battling against by people who are clearly pushing their prejudices on Scientology and gang up on you to defeat your edits. But sometimes we make progress. The article should be a shopping list of ideas distinguished by not being psychological concepts. Freud did not believe in God so he should be out of it. It just maybe needs brevity. I still think my idea of balance of ego and God is valid, if only because I googled it and found it wasn't original research. Which I admit dented my ego a little.Drg55 (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misunderstanding about reliable sources. Religion, in its different aspects, is the subject of many academic books, journals and university courses. These are the reliable sources, not personal opinion. Please don't attempt any major edits to articles without grasping the reliable sources policy first. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice regarding recreation, or blank and start over. If we are to have an article on this topic, it should be scholarly, broad and inclusive, both culturally and historically, not a listing of what an arbitrary collection of obscure self-styled 'spiritual teachers' had to say, as selected by one fringe occultist. If there is a page to be written on the topic, this isn't it, and so little of the content of the current page is likely to end up in the finished product that it will only get in the way of someone doing it right. Agricolae (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large part of the problem with this is the title itself. "Spirituality" covers, well, all of religion that has any notion of a spiritual world. I don't see how this is going to deal with having Christianity, ancient Egypt, Hinduism, and everything else into a stew with various New Age/Theosophist/whatever ideas. Perhaps it's possible to write up something on the latter (without trying to make a synthesis of everything but Islam and fundagelical/Catholic Christianity) but this isn't the right name for such an article. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main point about this Mangoe is simply that it is from ego (disambiguation).Drg55 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice as per comments above. Wikipedia needs content about the different conceptions of ego in different spiritual or religious traditions, but this can be in articles about those traditions, or about specific religious concepts such as Atman. The concept of "ego" is going to differ wildly across different traditions and conceptions of spirituality: so much so that I doubt reliable sources will justify a unified topic. Thanks Warden for providing a specific example of a relevant reliable source, but "Eastern spirituality" is a long way from "spirituality" as a general topic. (as Mangoe rightly spells out) MartinPoulter (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is unquestionably notable, and some of the content can be salvaged. WP:NOTESSAY does not apply to the entire article, but I acknowledge that the article needs to be stripped down to the first couple of paragraphs and then expanded, mostly with scholarly secondary sources. - Mr X 16:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without prejudice to recreation. The easiest way to build an article from scratch is to, well, build it from scratch. That the subject may be notable, and that there might be content worth salvaging, is beside the point. As it stands, this is a steaming heap of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Ravenswing 05:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a very good WP:OR and WP:SYNTH A m i t ❤ 15:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per MartinPoulter. It has possibilities, but needs rescuing by somebody who knows the topic. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Stormbay (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ego (religion), unless someone can convincingly explain the difference. Merger should probably come to "spirituality". The topic itself is highly notable. MartinPoulter makes a good point that "Ego" can be covered within specific religious traditions; but why exclude those discourses that use the word Ego? In addition to Eckhart Tolle, I'm quite sure that Aldous Huxley refers to "Ego" in The Perennial Philosophy. Indeed, "Ego" may be the term of choice for English proponents of the (lower case) "perennial philosophy". More reliable secondary sources should (as usual) be sought in order to provide a broader perspective. groupuscule (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rendition (text adventure game)

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

No mainstream coverage, relies entirely on coverage from a non-notable art show. Nowhere appropriate to merge or redirect the page to. Freikorp (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator due to addition of several references. Freikorp (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that the game has been discussed by notable text adventure authors and writers including Jon Ingold and Emily Short certainly suggests that the work is noteworthy. It also seems to have been discussed by Nick Montfort at the 2009 Digital Arts and Culture Conference (citation not currently in the article). I'm not as familiar with Ingold, but Short and Montfort are definitely big-name established experts in their field and they've been published in numerous third party RSes. So I think several of the sources here can probably be considered reliable under WP:SPS. This game might not be as notable as some of the blockbuster titles coming out for modern genres, but I'm inclined to err on the side of inclusion due to the attention it seems to have received from these big names in the field. -Thibbs (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Princes Highway. (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princes Highway East (Melbourne)

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

These articles should either be deleted, merged or preferably userified (if someone volunteers to find references) and then merged into Princes Highway or if required; the other existing articles such as Princes Freeway and Princes Motorway -- Nbound (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages are also included in this discussion

-- Nbound (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Each section then can be more precise. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to follow this we will at some point need to discuss what makes a notable subsection deserving of an article. To me this is largely meaningless disambiguation for the sake of overly verbose route descriptions on longer roads -- Nbound (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At some point we will have need to for daughter articles on roads, not wanting to discuss criteria isnt a valid reason to suggest deletion Gnan garra 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not suggesting we delete specifically, just that something be done with them - my preference is userified until references found (and articles summarised) and then merged :). I wasnt saying criteria discussion as a reason not to do it either, just that we'd have to figure out some criteria before the next one of these pops up. -- Nbound (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the reason for nominating here, merging is an alternative for otherwise notable content... If you wanted to merge why not just tag them with {{merge to}}{{merge}} etc, Gnan garra 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see what others thought, deletion was an option, just not my personal first preference. Deletion is just one possible outcome from an AfD nom, despite the name :). For example, AURD's last AfD ended resulted in a redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroad 5 (Sydney) -- Nbound (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Princes Highway - All of the articles need work, but there is no reason for them to exist separately. They should not be deleted as the edit history should be preserved. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
inclined to say Keep but Merge as per Aussielegend is probably the better compromise, these are plausible daughter articles once content gets beyond route descriptions. Even from WA I'm aware of issues with the Highway over the years and these issues do differing State implications... Gnan garra 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify and merge or just Merge - (as nom) - clear up my position -- Nbound (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No need for a separate bullet. Also AfD is intended for deletion only (though as you note, other outcomes are possible), and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for speedy keep #1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move via Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and the article's talk page. czar · · 14:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Titanium (band). (non-admin closure) czar · · 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Titanium members

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

This article has been up for a while now, tags I added have not been improved. I am opening an AfD as it is not notable as all sources are from one site. Tyros1972 Talk 11:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Titanium (band). Insufficient non-trivial coverage. Even the parent article barely qualifies as WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Titanium (band). Information about the band members is appropriate in the band article. No good reason for this to be split out into a separate article, and no good reason to delete this material when it is missing from the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Whpq. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full FIFA World Rankings

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

PROD contested by IP who said "Because I don't want the page deleted." This article is not only superfluous to FIFA World Rankings, but I understand that a full list could well violate copyright, and this discussion from July 2012 seemed to conclude that such a list was not needed/wanted. Giant Snowman 10:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The FIFA Terms of Service says "FIFA Content is provided to You AS IS and may not be used, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed or otherwise exploited for any other purposes than their access and usage on the Website. For that sole and exclusive purpose, FIFA grants to You a limited, revocable, non-exclusive licence to access and use the Website privately for non-commercial purposes, in accordance with these Terms." The full rankings are also published by Soccerway (see here) and also here so I'm not sure how strictly FIFA enforce their copyright. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters for us, as U.S. copyright governs here, which doesn't recognize database rights and I think would treat these rankings as uncopyrightable fact. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for something like this. If people want to find out the correct FIFA rankings, they should go to FIFA.com, which is linked from the article we already have about the rankings themselves. – Pee Jay 10:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't understand the point of directly copying the rankings from another website. What does that add to Wikipedia with nothing new especially if people would likely go to the website that the article copied? SL93 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information into FIFA World Rankings. NickSt (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is literally nothing in this article that should be merged. – Pee Jay 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superfluous and a possible copyright violation. Not to mention ugly. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia -> WP:NOTSTATS -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G3 Blatant hoax) by INeverCry (talk · contribs)

Mohammad Ali Abedi Ostad (table tennis)

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

How is this person notable? No RS and nothing comes up in google. Tyros1972 Talk 09:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced BLP. The article had, at one point in its evolution, a series of references that were taken directly from the article on Noshad Alamian, but had nothing to do with Ostad. I know we are supposed to assume good faith, but false references always make that difficult. Instead, I suspect a giant hoax perpetrated by the author himself. No sources to be found, and the BLP PROD has been repeatedly removed, enough times by the original author to constitute actual vandalism, and finally by an IP editor in that editor's one and only Wikipedia edit. (I think I smell a WP:SOCK.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:BLP. Unsourced BLP & I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability or pass WP:BLP. Jguy _Talk^Done 15:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for Speedy Deletion as there is absolutely nothing in Persian and it's possibly a HOAX.Farhikht (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 04:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Amir Makov

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

Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 09:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like the bio of an average successful person in the finance industry. Insufficient notability. Zero^talk 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, G3: Blatant hoax, G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP, in view of the list of people in the article, and the comments about them. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3E1 Elimination Ceremony

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

No RS, has been previously submitted via AfD with unknown results (see talk page) possibly recreated? Article is not notable for inclusion. Tyros1972 Talk 09:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Barchha Sahib

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Assam, a minor mention seems acceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Merging is not acceptable because the article has no references. SL93 (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on the discussion below, I am afraid, at this point we do not have reliable sources which establish existence of the subject of the article. When/if these sources are found the article can be restored/recreated.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gheba

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

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is referenced and more references can be found (I added another, using a Google Books search). I can see on the article Talk page that there has been som controversy about its content over the years, but that is a matter for normal editing. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources were reliable and I have removed them. The Brits of the Raj period didn't have a clue what they were recording most of the time and those sources are routinely removed from Indian caste articles, quite often with the express agreement of contributors who claim to be members of those communities. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no faith in the research methods or anything else practiced under the Raj, but the wholesale removal of material and references during an AfD as in this edit doesn't seem appropriate, unless possibly by quoting some published research that decisively counters the references removed and proves their falsity? AllyD (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published rubbish based on principles of scientific racism is not published research in the sense that we would use in an article about a group of people. It is entirely justifiable to remove it. It is not my burden to provide alternate sources but, believe me, I have a lot of experience in this subject area. - Sitush (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noting a large number of nominations of articles all claiming "No scope for improvement" submitted at 1 minute intervals, I am wondering if the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE on each in that space of time? AllyD (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not difficult to fathom. One user created them ages ago using a single unreliable source - go through that contributor's list of created articles, see if they are sourced now and if not then nominate for deletion per WP:BURDEN, WP:GNG and WP:V/WP:RS. I've been tempted to nominate quite a few of them myself in the past. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the case, though. The original article creators of Gheba (nominated 17:58) and Indian Liberal Party (nominated 18:01) were not the same editors; nor are these articles sourced to the same source, unreliable or not. AllyD (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of Mangat clan, actually. In any event, if you have a problem with the nominator's behaviour then the correct venue is WP:ANI, not here. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've had a considerable involvement in numerous Indian caste/community articles. One issue that arises with articles that are suggested to be "clans" (or "gotras", or several other variant names for roughly the same thing) is the endogamous nature of the Indian caste system. Finding passing references to - in this instance - Gheba as what would be called a surname in the west is easy, but it does not verify clan or caste status in a manner that en-Wikipedia's policies generally accept. To take a different caste, there are plenty of people around the world whose last name is Nair but who have no connection at all to the Nair people of India. Basically, making such a connection without decent sourcing is original research. Of course, there is nothing to stop us turning this into an article purely of the Category:Surname variety, if it has notability in that context. Which seems unlikely.
There are passing references to the Gheba as a community; for example, here. But they are so fleeting that they fail the notability test. There are sometimes more detailed mentions of them in the works of the Raj so-called ethnologists etc but, as I've said in a comment above, those sources are dreadfully poor - take a look at James Tod and H. H. Risley for a couple of well-worked examples of why this is so. And Denzil Ibbetson even went so far as to acknowledge that he and his colleagues were more or less writing "blind". Recognised societal processes such as sanskritisation have further complicated the situation and, for example, the number of documented castes has risen from around 1000 in 1900 to in excess of 4500 in the 1990s because of such factors. Basically, we have an awful lot of stub-type articles that are likely neither useful in the Surname category nor in Category:Indian castes or similar, simply because the information is often not out there in any reliable, meaningful detail. A very few, however, have been accorded substantial coverage in the post-Raj era and really do deserve their place.
I'm going to do one last trawl for sourcing the Gheba stuff before !voting. My gut feeling, based on past efforts, is that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of clan/gotra articles that really have no place here. - Sitush (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasoning above. It doesn't meet N, GNG or V. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Jameel

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

Article appears promotional in its nature and tone. No notability as per WP:SCHOLAR is asserted either in the article or its sole reference, a promotional website. Article's author has also vanished from Wikipedia.Ad Orientem (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that an author of the article is no longer editing (as of a month ago) is not itself evidence of shenanigans, nor does it change whether a subject is notable or not. That said.... boy, this is a mess of an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep.Delljvc (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resonse Any rational behind your keep? I am open to any suggestion that I missed something that meets Wiki notability standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP with no sources to back it up. The only ref is a link to a blog and some videos of an unrelated person. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pointless nomination. If it's promotional, then fix, why an AfD instead? He is a very famous, notable and heard scholar. The article should be definitely kept. Fai zan 10:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram

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

Don't find any third party reliable reference which indiates this place is notable to be included in an encyclopedia as a seperate article.Benedictdilton (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently this hinges on what exactly a "housing colony" in India is (if that's what this is). The nominator on his talk page thinks on its on the order of an apartment complex, not a settlement of the kind that we presumptively keep regardless of demonstrated notability. I haven't yet been able to find a clear definition, just online uses of the term. postdlf (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article or Google Maps is wrong; it seems as if this is roughly a suburb and not a town or larger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Kalyan Temple

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

Merge with Rajasthan Tourism or delete Benedictdilton (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very old temple likely to have a long history and plenty of non-English sources. Presumption of these sources and its history pushes me to keep this stub. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is probably a better search term. The current article is a mess, with one sentence just saying where it is, and the other two presenting an origin myth as fact. However, the temple has verifiably been an "important" pilgrimage centre (with an associated mela) since at least the 19th century, and non-English language sources would probably go further back. The problem is that most of these sources (at least among reliable English language ones easily findable on a Google search) are mere mentions, with little information beyond its being in Diggi, Rajasthan (which, despite not currently having an article, almost certainly meets NPLACE) and, sometimes, that it is Vaishnava. This source, though, suggests that the temple was significantly rebuilt sometime in the 1990s to disguise the fact that a reputed Muslim pir buried within the temple area had also previously been worshipped on the site (and other sources only available on Google as snippets seem to confirm this) - which makes me wonder if any sources have been quietly "lost" (or at least not reproduced online). Unless and until we can get more details about the temple than would be expected in an article about Diggi, it might be an idea to write that article and redirect this one there. PWilkinson (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Institutions and Governance

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

An essay, quite simply. Rewriting would seem to be insufficient. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that the article has been tagged as such for more than a year. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is not clean up, I suppose I could take a hatchet to the essay form, but it will be left as a start or less when I am done with it. The way the references and everything is done prevents a simple AWB compress, auto-name and working to a more manageable form without breaking the page. Subject appears to meet GNG, but the essay form is the problem which will take a fair amount of time to correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as just someone's personal essay. It's possible that an article on hybrid institutions could be written, but it certainly would not be this article. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Entirely and hopelessly promotional. Deleted as G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Du

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

Repost (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Du); "db-repost" was declined, but the article, at first glance, does not contain any significant new proof of the person notability and information reliability. OneLittleMouse (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and I have tagged it (again) as such. Of course the articles are the same. The last discussion was closed less than a month ago and all of the "sources" provided are purple links for me - which means I looked at them all during the course of the last discussion. There is a detailed analysis of those sources in the last AFD. The article even contains the same silly charity claims I commented on last time. This is clearly an attempt to contradict the consensus of the last AFD. As far as I can see, the lede is exactly the same as I remember it and the body of the article is exactly the same, but with some of the removed puffery re-inserted. Stalwart111 13:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I had to decline the G4 speedy. It had previously be declined by another administrator. But there is nothing to prevent a speedy for another reason, and I'm going to speedy delete this as G-11 promotional. it's even worse this time around. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tully Stockton

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 04:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Gobonobo. United States Man (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO, could have been A7 speedy deleted. STATic message me! 23:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is all original sources or primary sources. This is a classic BLP of a up and coming ("on the rise") rapper. I can't find any reliable sources online using the usual searches. I am willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socially responsible outsourcing

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

This article appears to have been created by the author, it isn't well written, doesn't appear to meet our notability and is basically just crap. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEO, per above. Ansh666 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

142 West 109th St.

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

I declined a prod on this because I think it might need discussion. The reason given was "Other than being the residence of Barack Obama, no evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited from the president". I'm not sure about that in this particular case, & someone might find somewhere to merge it DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there's no doubt there is an extent to which notability here in inherited from President Obama, given the building wouldn't otherwise be notable had he not lived there (and I imagine some would argue it isn't just because he did). That said, the building has received significant coverage in reliable sources. They aren't written by the building manager, or even by the tenant (Obama himself) or by a real estate agent looking to sell it. These are books, and articles in the New York Times. Yes, all of them talk about the building in the context of his living there but it has received significant coverage nonetheless. I suppose if it was going to be merged anywhere it would be Early life and career of Barack Obama where it is already mentioned. Stalwart111 04:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any significant coverage, just a bunch of real estate listings and "Obama slept here", with all of the latter emphasizing that there isn't anything remarkable (i.e. notable) about the building. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reason whatsoever to keep articles on every single place that every single world leader ever lived. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. --ELEKHH^T 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. L Faraone 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bashkir Wikipedia

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

Non-notable version of wikipedia. The article has no independent sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another Wikipedia project that doesn't warrant its own enwiki entry. Not a notable website in any means, there are no reliable sources that exist. Vaca tion 9 03:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias would be a sensible option. Giant Snowman 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AM FM Energy

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

Non-notable local business. I couldn't even establish that it is, indeed, sponsoring the racing team mentioned in the article. TKK ^{bark !} 02:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The car sponsorship can be confirmed here. However that does not confer notability and I have found nothing to suggest this is more than a firm going about its business; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete seems to be a retail business with no inherent notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am closing this silly deletion discussion. If it's outdated, then update it. If it's misforked, then merge it back up and fork it differently. None of this should be discussed at AfD. There's not a cogent deletion rationale anywhere on this page, really. -- Y not? 15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the Arab Spring

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

Out-of-date WP:Content fork of Arab Spring; not IMO a likely search term. Ansh666 04:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, content already appears to be in a more up to date form at Arab Spring#Overview. Although the Arab Spring is a notable subject, as the parent article meets WP:LIMIT, there is a need for two or three sub-articles, the subject of this AfD could be one of them, and the more up to date information on the Arab Spring article can replace the less current information that is on the subject of ths AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Beakman's world? Ansh666 06:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opps! I was searching for Beakman's World prior to this.

Perhaps a summary can be left in the parent article, to help reduce the size of the parent article, and thus make this article a true sub-article. The current parent article is 256k, 156k greater than WP:TOOBIG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's in the nature of main articles to contain a summary of the topic, so a summary split-off is inappropriate. Mangoe (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was thinking that it might be appropriate for a summary-only article on the Arab Spring (as RCLC described and as exists for other subjects, though I'm too lazy to go find one as an example), but unless someone volunteers to do this now, a WP:TNT delete would probably be in order. Remember WP:HEY. Ansh666 20:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rename or merge back. "Overview" type of articles are bad style per MoS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge upwards. I don't think the "overview" section is one that can reasonably be split off per WP:SS. Looking at the Arab Spring but having never (as far as I recall) edited it, I'd suggest the "background" section would be the best section to split in order to meet the WP:TOOBIG concerns. Alternatively, this could be moved and repurposed to Outline of the Arab Spring – I agree with Ansh666 that an article offering a briefer summary would be helpful, and outlines fulfil that role. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, I was thinking of "Outline" articles - no wonder I was confused when the suggestions for "Overview of" came up with very little! I think "Outline" would be better than "Overview". Ansh666 17:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete following relisting The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DHS Bolts

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

Seems to be an advertizement for "DHS Bolts" and nothing more. WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING Tyros1972 Talk 11:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - DHS Bolts are an aviation industry standard for a fitting. As de Havilland no longer make aircraft how can it be an advertisement? The only source providing more information is the attached link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think I misunderstood what this is. I will have someone verify it and remove the AfD. Thank you. Tyros1972 Talk 13:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about the subject but I query whether a product prefix is notable and I find myself wondering whether this is a bit too "how to" for inclusion. Stalwart111 13:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not simply a product prefix. It referes to a range of bolts, to which I can contribute more, which are integral to not only de Havilland aircraft (and helped create their own industry including seals, rivets etc) but are included on all British aircraft made since the Second World War. DHS Bolts, as well as AGS Bolts (and NAS bolts) are unique product ranges which help hold an aircraft together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what makes those products notable? Stalwart111 23:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These products are a standard hardware range on British Aircraft. They are not like other bolts. Examples of them hold aircraft as diverse as the Concorde to the Jetstream. Also it was a product line that de Havilland developed along with Aircraft and Weapons and, unlike these, is still be manufactured today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 06:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think you understand what I mean. I believe that they exist and that they have some importance in holding aircraft together. But that's not the same as notability (have a read of WP:N, specifically WP:GNG). Stalwart111 06:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. DHS Bolts are in many ways simular to British Standard Whitworth in that they are an aviation standard of bolt. Does being a standard make it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulGreasley (talk • contribs) 10:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not in and of itself. We would likely still need coverage in reliable sources, or at least a reliable source or two to verify that it is iconic or culturally or technologically significant in some way. Just being a particular designation that a company has given its spare parts (or other companies have subsequently given its spare parts) probably isn't enough. Besides which, the example you provided is a national (now international) standard per the British Standards Institution and I would venture to suggest not even all of their "standards" would be considered notable. A standard set by a particular company, even a notable one, probably isn't notable on its own. It would need to pass WP:PRODUCT to be considered notable, in my opinion. Stalwart111 11:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've commented but haven't actually added anything by way of an opinion and this has now been re-listed twice. In that time, the article hasn't been improved and no reliable sources have been offered to substantiate any real level of notability. I just can't see how a spare parts prefix like this could possibly be notable without some form of source suggesting it is somehow significant or has had a significant impact. Stalwart111 02:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside of a mention in a Federal Register document, I could find no secondary sources discussing DHS bolts. The topic seems to fall below notability threshold for general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. The one reference given is to a page on the Allaero website. I note that the director of Allaero is Mr Justin Paul Greasley, who looks related to the main editor of this article, so there is likely a conflict of interest, per WP:COI, and does thus look like advertising. --Mark viking (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit irrelevant really as the article is a blatant COPYVIO of [4]--Petebutt (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, though the publisher in both cases would seem to be the same person who has released the content to WP by saving it here. He would only be "violating" his own copyright, I suppose. Stalwart111 04:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WilliamH (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Fox Pharmacy

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

I read through all of the sources that easily meet our WP:RS guidelines; not a single one mentioned this website, but rather were in support of more general claims made in the article. This was previously speedily deleted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even see an assertion of significance that would pass CSD A7 in this article, which says hardly anything about the actual company and is mostly padding about the industry in general. January (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot see how tfheri business model can possibly work for the highly regulated UK prescription pharaceuticals sector. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The pharmacy is not notable and the article is not neutral, full of editorialising. --MelanieN (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex campain

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

Non-notable DJ. Google turns up nothing but forum posts and self-published material. TKK ^{bark !} 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not A7 material because of the way it's worded, but everything I could find were self-published press releases and "upload your own music" sites. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:MUSIC spectacularly, entirely sourced to one press release. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Alex Campain AEK meets WP:MUSIC requirements; Proper research of artist producer was not conducted properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.223.6.224 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.Notability for Alex Campain possible reliable source CBS News Money Watch CBS News Money Watch .

2.Artist has produce music that is viable and uploaded by third party beatport among other high notable music website such as amazon,itunes,Juno, spotify and many more. "Let You Go"

3.Artist Alex Campain akn "AEK" is a notable pioneering producer and composer of "free style electronic dance music" of the late 1980's and current within the EDM Culture and community. wikipedia search on google for Alex Campain "Free Style Electronic Dance Music"

4.Google search for Alex Campain AEK news displayed many results within the news and media outlets news on google for Alex Campain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tianwei124 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Tianwei124 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Tianwei124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That CBS Moneywatch "article" is just a reprinted press release, not independent coverage, as are all of the "Articles" that Google brings up in your linked search (they're all the same press release, in fact). Beatport, iTunes, et al do not confer notability: just about anybody can offer tracks through those services. The "free style" search also doesn't bring up any relaible sources: more copies of the press release, a couple of forum posts, the article under discussion, the Freestyle music article (in a section that's marked as being unsourced and having no inclusion criteria, not that it would count if it did since Wikipedia can't use itself as a source), a YouTube playlist. You've convinced me that this is a clear delete. — Gwalla | Talk 19:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Gwalla on this, clear delete, seems almost like self advertisement. El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable artist (still). And, as an aside, most of the article appears to be a copyvio. Yintan 00:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Include in wikipedia " strong do not delete" Alex Campain is a notable dj and producer. The CBS News article is a "third party" Independent coverage article and a very reliable media source. Also beatport is not just a "upload yourself music site??" it is for notable artist and producers, and it is not like you stated a "just about anybody can offer tracks through those services" before you state a comment as the one above, please do your "diligent proper research" on site such as beatport and Juno, "NOT just about anybody can offer tracks through those services" I believe you have to be a signed and distrubuted as a certified official artist and composer through a major EDM record label and distribution network; You Gwalla have not done you proper research and have just convince me to include this article. Again obviously you did not DO proper research into beatport,juno and such sites. I believe CBS News reprint, press release or however you want to put it did cover the article among many others as I have investigated and I believe the article got trended to many other independent state journals and chronicles. If CBS news is not a reliable source "independent coverage or not" CBS News found the article important enough to publish on their site and I believe CBS NEWS is one of the most notable and relible media news agencies out there and I trust them. If this does not concur with the notability aspect of the article then what does?. I agree with Tianwei124 include this article. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazminacordova (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC) — Jazminacordova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In regards to the CBS report, it is obviously a redistributed press release. The poor formatting compared to their other articles, and the fact that there is no given author but instead a Press Release Distribution Service tells me that this is no indication of notability. This same exact press release can be found on dozens and dozens of other sites.

Second, Beatport, Juno, and other sites allow anyone to publish music to them. They've even signed up for a program to help independent artists on iTunes move to their marketplace. I find it amusing that you are attacking us for not doing proper research when most of us have.

If "Gwalla not doing proper research" convinced you to keep the article then you really need to read up on WP's various policies regarding sources. A single reprinted press release on a single news site's blog does not confer notability - see User:Gwalla's comment above. --TKK ^{bark !} 02:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to be a little more cautious with your words, as the way you are ripping into User:Gwalla about their research instead of discussing the article itself may be viewed as a personal attack. --TKK ^{bark !} 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: FWIW, I don't consider it a personal attack and was not offended. — Gwalla | Talk 21:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone just wanted to get this out of the way first, reading the above statement, I don't feel Jazminacordova was being rude or "attacking" anyone when reading the above , I think it was more like a point of view on her side more like an "opionion" , so... to say that she is "ripping" into another user, is misinformative. Also I would like to add I'am a "facts person," which means I see factual evidence, I did my own research concerning this topic, and regarding beatport, I was not able to get into their site, I believe their DNS has been down for a couple of days, I was trying to find their policies on artist and producer and their acceptance of artist, but to no avail their servers are down. As soon as they become available I will post their link concerning their acceptance on artist and producers. I was able to find a another website that gave information on beatports policies on accepting artist and reading through their policies on this article, it seems like beatport does NOT allow just anyone to publish music to their site, you have to be An "Established Artist" with provable high volume sales,or a Record label with an established roster of Artists Signed to A record label or Accessing them via one of the distributors such as Tunecore. here is the article on the forum I found I hope this helps beatport policies on accepting artist. With that being established; In regards to CBS News and the artist at hand, being on CBS NEWS as a artist is very notable and does establish credibility. CBS News is not just one of the "run of the mill" news agency, it is one of the most important news media outlet in the world. This for me and I believe for many others establishes this artist notability. I have read various WP's policies in regards to notability,credibility and reliable sources and reading through the wikipedia policies on reliable sources, I definitely consider CBS NEWS a very credible and reliable source and news outlet just like millions of Americans... ok so these are the facts A. the artist is on CBS NEWS "a very credible and reliable source" regardless of the format of the article this for me establishes notability in regard to WP'S policies on reliable sources and independent coverage. B. Not just anyone can be on beatport, as far as the forum states "see link above", but I will confirm later on this talk with the actual beatport link to their policies on artist/producer policy acceptance -Marcos G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.223.6.224 (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Before you go to the trouble of looking up Beatport's policies, be aware that they're irrelevant. None of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO would depend on a store's policies, since non criterion refers to stores at all. Also, CBS News is a respectable reliable source, but CBS MoneyWatch website is not the CBS news desk: it's a personal finance tips site under the CBSNews.com umbrella, and it reprints press releases. This is not hard to verify: the "article" on that site about Mr. Campain has the byline "By: AB Newswire - Press Release Distribution Service". That's pretty cut-and-dried. — Gwalla | Talk 21:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IHME Contemporary Art Festival

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

Was nominated for speedy under WP:G11 but denied. I am opening an AfD as am unable to find anything reliable sources on this, as is it notable for wiki? I would also like to note that author has the same name of the article and judging by the bias review has a conflict of interest.Tyros1972 Talk 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It was I who declined the speedy--it's a list of events over several years. Certainly COI. I don't consider such articles G11 territory unless it focuses on a current or forthcoming event, or describes it in advertising terms. I think it is probably notable , because the lead event every year has been an installation by an very notable artist. Since it is an event in Finland, Finnish newspaper sources would be the most likely place to find references. It also needs checking for reviews of the most important individual projects. An art show whose annual major event is always itself notable is a notable show. (but that has to be shown). Keep because I think such references can be found, as a guess based on the notability of the artists; weak because I havent tried yet. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it maybe notable if someone can find more RS, I agree it seems to have some merit and AfD is more suitable then a speedy. I have to say it should be deleted as it stands now as it needs a lot of work in addition to hunting down RS. Tyros1972 Talk 07:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As with the views above, the prominence of each year's invited artist predisposes to a keep (despite WP:NOTINHERITED) though this does require independent refs and finding these has been a struggle (possibly language barriers). There is a piece about Bałka's recent work on e-flux but that is effectively a press release. However I did find one review in Frieze (now a ref in the article) which may be enough. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus' fourth album

My-my-my-my music hits me... so hard
Makes me say, oh my Lord

- MC Hammer

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

Seems WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Was tagged for WP:CSD by an IP editor. Jguy _Talk^Done 01:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! - Hammer time. Stalwart111 04:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: More than happy with incubation if someone wants this in their userspace for a couple of months. Stalwart111 04:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a small amount of relevant information around her signing for RCA, working with a few producers, etc. and that is more than adequately covered in the Miley Cyrus article. A standalone article is not yet justified. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think it should be at least has a TITTLE, but now, not we only know that is gonna be happening, but not for now. shoud be deleted for now. A standalone article is not yet justified. -- --Raúl Romero (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, Redirect to Miley Cyrus discography. For a second there I forgot my own Wiki beliefs. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would it be useful to redirect this to an article where it (quite rightly) isn't mentioned? --Michig (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I always prefer redirection to deletion, and "We Can't Stop" is mentioned on the discography page, which is currently the only somewhat notable thing about the album. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate The article was being tagged by IPs whose edits are similar and disruptive as those of TheRaulRomero/ECMLol There is enough reliable information the album will happen and will be released, only is missed when and its title. NotCrystal and essays are generally not a good reason to delete. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Some useful info here, but definitely premature for a mainspace article. Adabow (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for the minute. As things currently stand now, the Billboard source is the only one that specifically talks about the album in depth, and hence is the only one than can substantially contribute towards WP:NALBUMS. Just because we assume an album will be released is no guarantee it definitely will. When we've got chart placings, then it can have an article. That's kind of what WP:HAMMER is all about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. No title, cover, release date, wide coverage in reliable sources, anything. Definitely too soon. STATic message me! 17:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What STATic said. Makes no odds, but I see little point in userfying or incubating; most of the content would (or should) be re-written once enough actual facts are known to merit an article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to !vote delete, that kind of implies you think all, not just most, of the content should be re-written, doesn't it? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per WP:TOOSOON. --Lprd2007 (talk) 08:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of world club champions in association football

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In addition, this deletion sets a precedent. MicroX (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Duplication of List of FIFA Club World Cup finals and List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners. The title assumes that Intercontinental Cup winners were world champions, which is not accurate. Hack (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this seems to be unnecessary duplication: the only alternative to deletion should be to fully merge in List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners and List of FIFA Club World Cup finals. This seems less useful however so I'll say delete. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is OR. Giant Snowman 10:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Originally, I would have !voted keep per WP:LISTPURP as a navigation list however as Hack points out, it is a copy of the Intercontinental Cup and club World Cup winners lists so any info should be merged into those if there is anything worth retrieving. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Listing the histories of two competitions as though they were one competition is misleading to the reader. – Pee Jay 13:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As already mentioned, this information is already available at both List of FIFA Club World Cup finals and List of Intercontinental Cup (football) winners, and listing the two competitions as if they were the same is misleading. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, this is not original research as several FIFA documents (published in the previous proposal for delection) all Intercontinental Cup winners were considered "world champions" (and there was even an article published at FIFA.com before the 2005 Club World Cup edition that explicitly says so). If there is any discrepancy with respect to titles like that, you could do an accuracy where appropriate as was done in this article.

Obvious examples are the original research are this article, this and this one (the latter is also POV from the title that has), but no one is pronounced (perhaps because nobody cares or because very few read).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplication of other articles and misleading. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with the delete-votes that say that it is SYNTH and OR, when you have this article from FIFA where the winners from the two other tournaments are combined. When FIFA considers the winners of two (three?) different tournaments as one group, there must be other reliable sources which does the same, which would make this list pass WP:LISTN. Yes, the information about the finals are duplicate from the other two lists, but you wont find the combined table in any of the other two lists. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead section of this article as paragraph in Intercontinental Cup and Club World Cup articles since this list refers to "football club world champions" (just a symbolic title like "champions of England") and not "Intercontinental Cup/Club World Cup winners".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 07:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TTTech

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

Organization fails notability criteria based on type of citations provided in article as well as an independent search of news, books, and other independent media. Aside from the fact that the article appears to essentially be a promotional vehicle for the company (WP:ADVERT), the following reference items fail to establish notability for the following reasons:

Citations: 1.) This is a link to the company's own web site (not independent— fails WP:IS).

2.) Also a link to the company's own web site (again, fails WP:IS).

3.) "Server not found/ dead link" error, no way to verify what type of source this was, text provided in citation gives no indication that the source is independent, reliable, or secondary.

4.) This is a paper co-authored by a co-founder of the organization (fails WP:IS).

5.) Another paper presentation with the same problem (fails WP:IS).

6.) This is another link to the company's web site (fails WP:IS).

7.) This is a link to the web site of a consortium of which the company is a member (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

8.) This is a link to another organization of which the company is only mentioned as an industrial partner (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

9.) This is a link to another organization's web site that credits the article's subject with having achieved a certain degree of wind-powered operation. This is a routine (if interesting) achievement, comparable to a press release, which apparently applies to about a hundred organizations within the company's nation (Austria)— it is not a competitive award, and cannot be used to establish notability (fails WP:CORPDEPTH).

10.) This is another link to the company's own web site (fails WP:IS).

11.) This specifically IS a press release ("Presseaussendung" — fails WP:IS).

12.) This is a record of a statement made by an employee of the company about a type of airplane (the Airbus A380) (fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a quotation from an organization's personnel as a story source).

13.) This is a link to a news article about certification for use of a technology created by the company by two government authorities. The company itself is not mentioned anywhere in the article— this citation could be used for an article about the technology, but does not establish notability for the company itself (fails notability by way of WP:PRODUCT).

My greatest concern, however, is that the majority of the article's content appears to have been composed and is regularly updated by a single user, Austria2010, who has never written text for anything other than this article and two corresponding articles on the company's technology— this raises concerns as to who this editor is and whether or not he/ she is in fact independent of the article's subject (concerns: both WP:IS and WP:COMPANY).

While it appears that some of the technology developed by the company is notable, there is no evidence that the company has any notability independent of this technology (reiterate concern: WP:PRODUCT).

Given the above, and given that I have not been able to find any suitable independent, reliable sources in other contexts for this company that are anything other than routine, passing, or trivial, I propose that it be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 00:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just because it's a badly written article that conveys nothing. I don't care what their office address is and how many employees they have. That's non-encyclopedic trivia that's a business directory and changeable, not something that benefits an encyclopedia.

Their core technology, TTP, a real-time capable Ethernet development would be encyclopedic and worth covering here. However no-one has written that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Ironically, there actually IS an article on TTP to which THIS article has no Wikilinks as yet— I would go ahead and put them in myself, but unless the consensus ends up being to keep the article, that's probably a waste of time.) KDS4444^Talk 00:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more solid case for deletion has not been made. Inanygivenhole (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually at least two Wikipedia articles already: I would lean to a merge into Time-Triggered Protocol and TTEthernet minus all the marketing language (please, they do not sell solution platforms!), but would also think a delete is not out of the question if that is consensus. The problem I foresee with a delete is someone may just create another advertising article in the future, and we would need to waste more time debating and deleting again vs. improving the current ones. Not sure if it is worth a "salt" option yet. The company has been around for longer than most, and the technology has some notice here and there (e.g. original research publications etc.). But clearly tons of uncited promotion needs to go. W Nowicki (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can do a redirect here, can we not? I agree, there is actually a good case for making sure the article's subject cannot be recreated in the unforseeable future and then another deletion discussion possibly to follow. Deleting it altogether allows for this possibility with greater ease, while a redirect shunts potential information seekers to the company's notable products while stripping out all the advertising fluff. And if the company does achieve notability someday, someone can view the log of the redirect and access this very discussion— and if they have actual citations to add, they can change the redirect back into a full article. Or we can delete it and I won't cry either. KDS4444^Talk 00:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. I don't think we need to go through AfD for these, and the consensus is clear already. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21554 Leechaohsi

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

Does not meet WP:N or the more specific WP:NASTCRIT. No near earth passes, no major news coverage, and not discovered after 1850. Tagged since Feb 2012. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Redirect Better for this would be to redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_21001–22000. Didn't realize there was such a list at the time of the AFD. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. If the asteroid actually exists, someone may attempt to do a search for it on Wikipedia and should be taken to an article such as the one mentioned above. KDS4444^Talk 00:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of minor planets: 21001–22000#501 per WP:NASTHELP. Praemonitus (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to List of minor planets: 21001–22000 per above, particularly Jguy. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 21001–22000 per above. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. L Faraone 01:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair

Prior AfD for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

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

Unencylopedic topic EnglishEfternamn _*t/c* 00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for substantially the same reasons as indicated in prior AfD. Yes, in some ways it appears to be a silly topic, but it's a notable one, as indicated by the substantial coverage it has received, as set out in the prior AfD (see Milowent's and Colonel Warden's comments), and apparently has an actual electoral effect. Reasonable minds may disagree on what an "unencylopedic topic" is, but based on the documented coverage and effect, this is not one. TJRC (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy keep Quoting User:King of Hearts who closed the previous AfD: Col. Warden has provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic. For the most part, the "delete" !votes are simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT: merely calling it "unencyclopedic trivia" does not make it so, as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources. No policy/guideline says that topics deemed subjectively by Wikipedians to be trivia are inherently non-notable; WP:TRIVIA refers to "Trivia" sections in articles and does not apply here. I understand that a lot of people are wondering, "What does facial hair have anything to do with a president?" I know I would too. But the simple undisputable fact is that the sources are there. This still applies here, as such, the article should be kept. Beerest355 Talk 00:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A woefully inadequate deletion nomination given the previous AFD. Show us you have at least read the previous discussion and understand why it was closed as "keep"; otherwise you are wasting everyone's time. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. –Quiddity (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the nominator is perfectly entitled to renominate this, since consensus on whether this subject is appropriate and/or notable can change within two years. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the closer's statement in the previous Afd. Most of Colonel Warden's sources are either definitions or incidental, which only go to prove that it exists not that it's in anyway notable. I was more convinced by Milowent's references which did provide some analysis on the subject. Also, the statement "as long as it is substantiated in reliable sources" clearly goes against the policy for what Wikipedia is not, something which is not superseded by the general notability guideline. There might be a case for a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation if consensus exists for that. Funny ^Pika! 04:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's perfectly entitled to renominate it, and I wouldn't have criticized him at all had he posted a rationale along the lines of your comment. Regardless of whether I ultimately agree with your assessment, you clearly looked at the previous discussion and gave it some thought. By contrast, it's very poor practice to renominate something that was kept after a very length discussion with a very lengthy closing rationale, without doing a thing to advance or respond to that discussion. Particularly given that "unencyclopedic topic" is a rather substance-free nomination even if there hadn't already been that prior, substantive AFD... postdlf (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Giving the nom the benefit of the doubt, he may not have realized there was a prior AFD with the article under a different name. I remembered it and added the prior-AFD box; mostly because I knew I would be referring to it in my !vote text. Of course, there's a notice of the prior AFD on the article's talk page, and presumably the nom reviewed the talk page for discussions before nominating; but it's a one-liner amid other boxes, and not all that conspicuous. TJRC (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, I actually find it quite ironic that most of the !votes here just state unencyclopedic topic or per someone else, especially given the closer's statement in the previous Afd. I suppose Afd is just a ballot box rather than a discussion forum these days. Funny ^Pika! 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per King of Hearts through Beerest355. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A silly topic indeed, but this easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete This should have been put out of its misery the first time around. It takes no serious research to see that around 1860 American men started to grow their beards out, and around the turn of the century started to shave again. It is not remarkable that presidents followed the same social pattern. One could possibly write an article about trends in male grooming in the country, which could have a paragraph about how presidential grooming reflected those trends. But this list, as it stands, is just dumb trivia. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: It's dumb but well-cited and much referenced trivia. –Quiddity (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even the dimmest reader can look at the list of presidents and figure out which have facial hair; it isn't as though there is a need for a separate list. The only other additional content is a remark about beardedness in the present which is really a comment on American politicians in general. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more than appropriately sourced. No valid rationale for deletion--as in, one that addresses actual guidelines or policies--has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits. It seems to easily meet our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid reason given to delete it. This is notable because reliable sources cover it, as pointed out in the previous AFD. Dream Focus 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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