From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 November 27 November >
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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

James Victor Gascoyne

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

Reason

This stub lacks any reliable sources to confirm the five aerial victories necessary to be a flying ace despite four years of searching. It cannot be developed beyond the stub stage not just because of the unreliability of the source, but because of the paucity of information available about Gascoyne. Georgejdorner ( talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Inclusion on lists of List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories to date has been based on a reliable source listing date, foe, and location of five victories. None of the sources above gives such. In my experience,award citations have often proved erroneous in noting number of victories, and seldom offer any other details. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Arthur William Hammond

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

Reason

This stub lacks any reliable sources to confirm the five aerial victories necessary to be a flying ace despite four years of searching. It cannot be developed beyond the stub stage not just because of the unreliability of the source, but because of the paucity of information available about Hammond. Georgejdorner ( talk) 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Changing lvote to keep due to his participation in Alan Arnett McLeod's VC exploit. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm not sure whether I support it or not, but we do generally have articles on all aces and it does appear he was. For consistency, we therefore either need to delete all of them or none of them. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • NOTE:We do NOT have articles on all World War I aces—only the notable ones. However, non-notable aces are still included in lists. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry, but I think you'll find we have many articles on aces who are notable simply for being aces. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • NOTE: Sorry, but I happen to know you are absolutely wrong because I created the great majority of World War I ace bios over the past five years while working on the others that have been created. I have honored the WP requirement that an ace needs to have been honored with an award to be notable. Georgejdorner ( talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • That makes no sense, considering WP:SOLDIER requires one first or two second-level decorations for notability. So you are arbitrarily deciding that one third-level decoration is enough for notability along with being an ace? Why? If you don't consider someone is notable for being an ace, why do you consider they're notable for having a DFC? That sounds like a rule of thumb you've made up yourself. That's why I said that many articles appear to be about aces notable only for being aces - I didn't realise you considered a single third-level decoration conferred notability. Not trying to criticise, just trying to understand why you think some aces are notable and others aren't. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 18:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
            • I considered the first provision of WP:ANYBIO to be binding in this instance. Georgejdorner ( talk) 17:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
              • By that reasoning we should have hundreds of thousands of articles on every winner of a third-level gallantry decoration. The fact we don't suggests that they are not considered to be a notable enough honour under the terms of WP:ANYBIO (and indeed, this has been established on many an AfD). --

Necrothesp ( talk) 19:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply

                • Indeed, if you apply that provision to non-aces with minor awards, that will be the case. However, using that provision in conjunction with proof of acedom actually limits the number of articles in WP, instead of expanding them. And yes, I made a (conservative) editorial decision regarding notability. It's called BE BOLD. Georgejdorner ( talk) 19:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Being a flying ace is prima facie establishment of notability in and of itself; there is no such thing as a "non-notable ace". - The Bushranger One ping only 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I tend to agree with TheBushranger that WP considers aces as prima facie notable simply because they were aces. In this case, however, if the only sources are TheAerodrome website and a service newspaper, then I don't think 'acehood' can be said to have been reliably established, and the subject therefore is not notable. Of course observer aces are a somewhat more problematic area than pilot aces. I know George has pored through a great many reliable sources in his work on ace articles, and I assume those include discussions of observer aces; if he can't find more reliable references, I'd be pretty surprised if they exist. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the chap. Has he published books on air aces? If so, perhaps Hammond's in there... As it is, I'm surprised he's not in a work like Above the War Fronts, which I understand deals specifically with British Empire observer aces (I assumed George had checked this one, I don't have a copy). Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 06:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to HIV/AIDS. L Faraone 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Super AIDS

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

Sensationalist title for a non-notable, unscientific topic that should be merged into South Park episode page and AIDS. While this topic might just have been notable around the time of the South Park episode and a brief splash about multi-drug-resistant HIV, it's not a term used in science and it's very rarely used beyond at the time. I don't believe the term is now notable enough for its own article and the sensationalist nature of the title seems (to me) both unencyclopædic and POV. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 21:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per OB and Carrite, except perhaps that target should be HIV/AIDS. -- Scray ( talk) 03:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to HIV/AIDS not HIV, because this is about a disease and not any particular HIV strain. The coverage of this topic seems limited. The sources which exist use this term as slang. Discussion of "super AIDS" does happen but because there is little information available I do not think this article should stand alone at this time. This certainly is not a defined medical condition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I think we should not make redirects without explaining the term on the destination page. This requires transfer of at least a definition/description to HIV/AIDS if this page is deleted. Lesion ( talk) 15:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Comment I'm not sure the term itself needs explaining; it was used colloquially for a short while, but the topic is actually about multi-drug-resistant HIV, that's the term we should be using. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 09:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 23:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Michael Diaz

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

Entrepreneur with little in the way of sources to support notability. Possible self-promotion. See also Cuban Sriracha. JNW ( talk) 21:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

2nd editor here, formally adding Cuban Sriracha to this AfD nomination (both articles share a similar creation history and lack of notability. @ JNW: to keep things clean can you please confirm that you agree with this nomination and rationale? VQuakr ( talk) 21:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Cuban Sriracha (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original editor of articles being discussed - I created both articles after reading about the product via the local paper (el nuevo herald), and buying the Cuban Sriracha from the website. Before I bought it, I googled Cuban Sriracha, and found nothing on Wikipedia, so I sent Mr. Diaz an email asking him some information about himself, and after he provided me with some interesting information I wrote the articles, which are my first to write... I will not be adding anymore apparently irrelevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.7.104 ( talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 23:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Laetitia Cash

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

Also nominating Maryam Khan and Andrew Mennear. Three politicians nominated due to the fact they didn't get elected to the House of Commons and, as I understand, that means they fall outside the notability criteria. Khan's article is a stub and doesn't even mention the fact she went up for election. Cash has some cites due to being the daughter of Bill Cash, but they could be covered in his personal life section and her fashion work isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion. Mennear has quite a fleshed-out biography but the fact remains it only relates to local council stuff, with the exception that he was briefly in the news for not liking a poster. HornetMike ( talk) 21:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jennifer Lawrence. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Filmography of Jennifer Lawrence

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

While certainly on her way there, Lawrence doesn't seem to have enough here to need to move this information to its own page. Seemed to work perfectly well where it was. I may be wrong, but I'll leave that up to others to help decide. iMatthew /  talk 20:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think that it is better to have the article created now, so as not to clutter her main page. Makro ( talk) 21:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It doesn't seem very cluttered. An example of a page with this sort of split: Jessica Lange / Jessica Lange filmography - as you see the filmography on Lange's page is very extensive and would clearly clutter up her page. Yet even with that much information on the split page, there is discussion of a merge. But someone like Emma Watson with a similar size list to Lawrences' seems to not be a problem, as Watson's article is a featured article. iMatthew /  talk 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
That works as well! iMatthew /  talk 06:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
* No! No! There can be only one victor of the 75th Afd Games. Two articles enter, one article leaves. Clarityfiend ( talk) 08:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
*Even if both articles originate from the same actress!? iMatthew /  talk 06:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand ( talk) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lauren Razavi

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

An IP tagged this for deletion using {{ delete}} with the following rationale "this does not warrant a wikipedia article as the individual is in no way notable - this is a self-made wikipedia page designed to help the career of a jobbing student journalist."

I didn't think it was quite bad enough to delete via G11 or A7 so decided to bring it here. Apart from the two interviews in poor quality sources that are already included in the article I can't find anything written about her so it appears to fail WP:BIO. SmartSE ( talk) 18:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Heidi Arena

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Possibly Redirect to The_Librarians_(TV_series)#Main_cast considering there was an award on her behalf for the show - She's been around regarding shows which is good but it seems there's never been anything actually in-depth about her. One Google News search here provided some results mostly from ABC Online (which are dead and only one retrievable), 2nd search and another search here. I also found articles here and here. Additional searches at The Australian, ABC and The Age found nothing better. She's had good attention for most of her shows including her own show with Audrey's Kitchen but there doesn't seem to much past this. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I didn't find much beyond minor mentions to establish notability for her own article at this point in her career. Maybe in the future! She was also in another program, so perhaps just deleting it is better than redirecting or choosing what article to redirect to. SarahStierch ( talk) 17:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Significant roles in multiple notable tv shows. WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 16:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bill Meyer (artist)

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

Non-notable person. None of his artwork is popular (sure he has plenty of work in galleries, but the galleries aren't well known). There is only one page that links to him and that is List of people from Hackney. Ug5151 ( talk) 03:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've added an AfD notice to the article and relisted the discussion. – Juliancolton |  Talk 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As an artist who was mainly active in the 1970s and 80s there's little online. Re WP:ARTIST, he does have work in the Tate (in UK) and National Gallery of Australia collections but does he meet "several notable galleries or museums"? There's very little information about him online in reliable sources. The Tate website has good info on one of his series of prints [8]. No academic studies that I can see (either in journals or exhibition catalogs). I can't find any reviews online, but most of his major shows were in the pre-internet era and e.g. The Bulletin (Sydney) has a review from 1973 that's in snippet view on Google Books. I suspect someone with access to print sources (particularly from Australia) could establish notability, but I can't. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Multiple works held in notable museums as noted above do establish notability for an artist. Additionally, I was able to dig up a little coverage in this book. There is a snippet view which makes it difficult to evaluate significance of the coverage but it is there. I also found this article from The Age which reviews one of Meyer's shows. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bideford#Shopping. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Atlantic Village

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

Non notable shopping centre fails GNG - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Saliva Exchange

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

No sources to indicate notability of the topic, close to a WP:DICDEF with some OR added. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 16:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Saliva exchange" is a term frequently used in books about human sexuality [9], [10], [11] as well as in books dealing with transmission of viruses and pathogens among animals as well as humans: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. The last notes that "saliva exchange" can be via shared lipstick, cigarettes and so forth, besides kissing. That said, sources just point it out as important without generally going on to any great extent about the quantity of fluid or methods to decrease (or increase) the amount transmitted or exchanged, or participants enthusiasm or lack of enthusiasm to be the recipient. "Backwash" from shared beverages, re-used water bottles [18] or even communion cups has also been written about. The sources go beyond defining what it is and discuss what effects it has, good or bad. There are also controversies as to whether it is a transmission mode for HIV [19]. A letter to Nature reviewed a wide array of scientific papers which described forms of saliva exchange in folk medicine of African peoples, including putting saliva in a babies mouth and premasticating food [20]. An article in the Telegraph said that scientists say kissing may have evolved to facilitate the spread of Cytomegalovirus from man to woman via saliva exchange so she can develop resistance to it which protects the baby: [21]. Persons considering getting CPR training have worried about acquiring HIV from saliva exchange via the dummy from earlier trainees, and this has been written about: [22]. A scientific study of the danger of peanut allergen transmission via saliva exchange used 5ml as a typical amount and looked at the danger at various times after the partner ate peanut butter. [23]. New England Journal of Medicine had an article reviewing type b hepatitis as commonly transmitted by saliva exchange through children sharing candy or chewed toys [24]. Seems to be a notable subject, and references only have to exist (as shown above), and do not have to be present in the article for it to be kept. Edison ( talk) 18:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Nice investigative work by Edison--that paragraph should go in the article, or at least the talk page. He's shown that this process is notable per WP:GNG and has been described in multiple independent reliable sources. The article needs sources, but this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn/Keep. Despite different searches I found nothing, But somehow references were found so GNG no longer applies. - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 14:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Peacocks (Woking)

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

Non notable shopping centre fails GNG, Seems more promotional than anything-
→Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 16:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

ENIGMA Development Environment

ENIGMA Development Environment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources:  "ENIGMA Development Environment" –  news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lack of available reliable, unaffiliated sources. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 16:11, 26 November 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) 01:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The standard is not non-affiliated references it's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These are things like in depth independent reviews, not routine entries in databases such as Ohloh and Launchpad (website) and certainly not the websites of redistributors of the software. Stuartyeates ( talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
That is also incorrect, the project has been discussed outside of affiliated sources, take for instance http://www.gmlscripts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=3434 and http://steamcommunity.com/app/214850/discussions/0/810924774505193071/ Steam as well, the article covers not one but two different programs together, that are both very well known about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.100.159 ( talk) 02:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The key word here is "reliable", not just unaffiliated. Reliability implies an established source with fact-checking, editorial oversight, author credentials. Forums and user posts are certainly not reliable, as anyone can post anything they want. If we used such sources, then anyone could make an article for any topic. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 09:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 15:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Real estate vijayawada

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

PROD tag removed fom article by author with no reason given. This is an unsourced essay and makes no case why the property market in this place is worthy of a wikipedia article. In short, not notable. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete - This article fails notability guildlines and has unverified Original Research. - Pmedema ( talk) 19:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Crewe#Economy. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Market Shopping Centre

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

Non notable shopping centre fails GNG, - →Davey2010→ →Talk to me!→ 15:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn for lack of a proper rationale, with a trout for the admin who jumped the gun. Further discussion on the proposed merge may be found at Talk:The Grey School of Wizardry. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The Grey School of Wizardry

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Zewai, who posted a request in this thread at WT:AFD. I've asked Zewai to give us a detailed rationale, in light of the discussion there. I'm also nominating the almost-duplicate article at Grey School of Wizardry, as per discussion. On the merits, no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

KEEP, but merge. It is hard to address the nomination when no reason has been given, and when the nominator has no history of editing, no contributions, no user page, or anything on his talk page but a comment by the editor who posted his nomination for him. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense to either merge the articles or just keep the one which is more complete, less repetitious, and more objective, with less peacock language and advertising copy. I admit that I am biased as the author of the article Grey School of Wizardry. I appreciate the work done by the other author, and I care not whether the merge is done by altering his or mine; I just want the one with the best chance of surviving challenges to remain. However, I consider the nomination for deletion to be wholly without merit. The subject is clearly notable, and sufficient citations and references have been provided to prove it. With time, I'm sure additional material will be added to support it even more. This school is a 501c3 organization, has hundreds of students, and is a project whose faculty and advisers include some of the most notable and respected members of the Neo-Pagan community; among them are: Raymond Buckland, Raven Grimassi, Donald Michael Kraig, Nicki Scully, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Patricia Telesco, Sam Webster, Trina Robbins, Ronald Hutton, Amber K, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Ellen Evert Hopman, Jeff McBride and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. The headmaster of this school, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, has been a respected leader of the neo-Pagan community for over forty years. IMO, the notability of the subject is obvious. Rosencomet ( talk) 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Fair points, all. I completed the nomination as per WP:AGF and WP:BITE - but will be happy to withdraw it and close this out if no rationale is forthcoming. Note also that the number of citations isn't the critical factor - rather, we need references that demonstrate the notability of the subject. At least one of the sources (the DailyMail article) seems to be more about the founder than the school, for example. Both versions could also be a bit more neutral in tone, as well, but that's not a cause for deletion. So let's see what the rationale says and then we'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
KEEP, though I would concur with Rosencomet above to merge the two articles. The sheer number of notable people involved with the School males it an entity that is both relevant and notable in itself. The fact the the founder is a pop culture figure only increases the worthiness of it's inclusion... much like an article about a recording by a musician or a movie made by a noted film-maker is. TaliesinG ( talk) 20:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the topic, then choose one of the article names for the merge and make the other one be a redirect. I have no preference for which title remains standing. Another possibility is that the two article histories might be merged, though this is a difficult administrative task. The topic by itself is notable (see the more-than-sufficient list of sources in this version of the first article started by Fcia0423, and in this version of the second article started by Rosencomet.) Since the topic meets WP:GNG we naturally would keep it. I don't think the SPA Zewai was acting in good faith. Binksternet ( talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Radicalisation Project

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

Procedural nomination, as original title was also deleted by PROD. PROD concern was "For the same unchanged reasons Radicalization Watch Project was proposed for deletion and deleted. —  Racconish  Tk 12:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)" Courcelles 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of military electronics of the United States. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

AN/TAS-4

AN/TAS-4 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin Let's talk! 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 15:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

MicroERD

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

I placed a PROD tag on this article for having no sources - it was removed and no sources were added, so here we are. This is a software product that was launched last month, and it seems that no third parties anywhere have taken notice of it - I can find no sources other than it's own website. I think it does not meet the general notability guideline and the article should be deleted. MrOllie ( talk) 12:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 ( talk) 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Rational trigonometry. This article would be deleted on its own, but with the current inclusion of Rational trigonometry the only sensible argument is to merge the subtopic into the topic. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Spread polynomials

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

This article was deleted by PROD, but almost immediately after that was protested by an IP (see the talk page). So I'm sending it here as a procedural action, below is the quoted rationale for the PROD.

The 7th deletion criterion: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" has been satisfied, since there are only two citations for the article, both rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject. (Norman Wildberger)

The reason that sources not involving Norman Wildberger cannot be found, is because there are no other sources, since the topic is not notable enough. It fails Wikipedia's test for notability, and hence satisfies deletion criterion 8.

Other issues about the outright lack of sources for some parts of the article have been raised. See the talk page for overwhelming support for deleting the article.

To be honest, I found the whole episode a little weird, with an article that'd been around for several years quickly set upon by several authors advocating deletion. Exposure to a good number of disinterested eyes seems called for. Wily D 11:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Searching finds a large number of book and journal sources (go on, try it, click on the "books" and "scholar" links above. Spread polynomials have applications in several areas of mathematics, well beyond Wildberger's original motivation for introducing them. There has been a clear failure of WP:BEFORE here, and the nominator deserves a second WP:TROUT. In addition, the article talk page has no support for deleting the article. -- 101.119.26.132 ( talk) 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)— 101.119.26.132 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    • The talk page from before the article was deleted had 6 people calling for deletion, and no one disagreeing. I'm not sure if you know but this article was deleted, but now undeleted due to the new debate. SohCahToaBruz ( talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Let us be specific here of this large number of book and journal sources. I could find the following through Google scholar:
      • doi: 10.1016/j.spl.2011.06.019 mentions the definition of spread polynomials once but does not use them.
      • doi: 10.1145/1390768.1390806 mentions spread polynomials in a table. It is not clear to me whether they use it in the same meaning as Wildberger.
      • Articles (co)authored by Wildberger: doi: 10.1007/s10711-012-9746-9, doi: 10.1007/s10711-007-9187-z, arXiv: 0911.1025, arXiv: 0806.2495, arXiv: math/0612499 (may contain duplicates).
      • Conference talk by Wildberger.
      • Goh, S. "Chebyshev polynomials and spread polynomials." PhD diss., Honours Thesis, School of Mathematics and Statistics, UNSW, 2005. In my opinion likely to be a student of Wildberger.
      • Articles using "spread polynomial" in a different context, as fas as I can see: doi: 10.1016/S0196-8858(02)00504-3 (on an algorithm of Zeilberger to compute hypergeometric sums), arXiv: 1211.2430 (which refers to the previous article), doi: 10.1109/ISCAS.2003.1204944 (on spread of eigenvalues in symmetric matrices); Ehrenpreis, Leon. "Some nonlinear aspects of the Radon transform." In Tomography, Impedance Imaging, and Integral Geometry: 1993 AMS-SIAM Summer Seminar in Applied Mathematics on Tomography, Impedance Imaging, and Integral Geometry, June 7-18, 1993, Mount Holyoke College, Massachusetts, vol. 30, p. 69. AMS Bookstore, 1994.
By my counting, that is one or two independent sources through Google scholar, neither of which are substantial. I think we need more. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 11:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I'm no sure about that analysis. Wildberger's definition is certainly used in Tamás F. Móri, "Deviation of discrete distributions—positive and negative results," Statistics & Probability Letters, Volume 79, Issue 8, 15 April 2009, Pages 1089–1096; and in Kenneth S. Berenhaut et al., "Deviations of discrete distributions and a question of Móri," Statistics & Probability Letters, Volume 81, Issue 12, December 2011, Pages 1940–1944; among others. -- 101.119.27.93 ( talk) 19:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply


  • Strong Delete. Two sources for the entire article, both including Wildberger. As been noted above, most of the scholar articles found about "spread polynomials" aren't actually referring to what is mentioned in the article.The article was originally deleted through non-controversial deletion where anyone could remove the tag over the course of the week. No one did, which might give another clue to the lack of notability of the article. SohCahToaBruz ( talk) 14:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The links to "books" and "scholar" above did a lot to convince me that this isn't notable. For example, 6 of the top 10 book hits in the books link are automated scraper publications that "steal" information from wikipedia to sell. In the scholar link, there are a mere 22 hits, many of which are Wildberger publications, publications also coming from UNSW, and others which may not even be talking about this article's topic. In my opinion, anyone appealing to these two links as support is desperately gambling that it will fool unobservant and gullible readers. Almost nothing there stands up to simple scrutiny. I could change my mind if better references appear. Can we please have a list of the strongest non-Wildberger citations? Non-UNSW and non-PhD dissertation citations would be appreciated. Rschwieb ( talk) 18:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I am not sure what you have against University of New South Wales, ranked 52nd in the world. I agree that this page should be merged to rational trigonometry, but I am not sure why UNSW sources should be disqualified. If mathematician A working at a respectable university has a colleague B who happens to work at the same university, why should citations by B of A carry less weight than citations by C of A where C works at a different university? Tkuvho ( talk) 18:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I guess I have to spell out exactly what I mean to dispel these exaggerations. I have nothing "against UNSW." I did not say they were disqualified in any way. The practical implication is that authors there there are more likely to be personally affiliated with Wildberger, and that is not strong support. Such citations should carry less weight because they may stand to profit from its visibility. Convincing support should come from outside his stomping grounds. By all means mention publishers there, but please as a matter of honesty indicate they are UNSW affiliated.
  • Each comment I've made has been to encourage strong evidence for the article's survival. Rather than only offer weak citations and rail at me for pointing out they're weak, please just offer stronger citations. I'm still willing to change my vote if they exist. Rschwieb ( talk) 00:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I am not in favor of retaining this as a separate page, so I think we are in agreement on "spread polynomials". As far as your position that UNSW citations are "weak", I think we will have to agree to disagree. Tkuvho ( talk) 09:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 23:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Cukrownik Chybie

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG and Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. According to the linked (self)ref also used on pl wiki, highest achievement for this club was Polish 3rd league. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Yep, this club promoted to third league, winning Regional Amateur League. So all the info is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmickey92 ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Being true is not an issue here. This is (quoting from FOOTY notability page): "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." And this team doesn't. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Frank Cannella

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

He might be notable, but there is no reason to trust People as a proof of auch notability. ( If academic works on advertising were to say something similar, it might be taken seriously.) The rest of the sources are even less reliable Further, this article is an advertisement: "Wisconsin Roots" is a heading that would only appear in a pr job, and the emphasis on "created several new long term positions" is about as trivial as I have ever seen here. The whole section on "community involvement" is the sort of good-will characteristic of advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: I've cleaned up the worst of the prose and if possible, I'd recommend userfying this to User:Mark RBraff if it doesn't pass. I think that there is a weak claim of notability since I've found some sources that refer to him as a pioneer of infomercials. It's just that digging is a little slow going since most of his coverage has been before the Internet was really a thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the People and Harper articles establish notability, if not reliability. The Racine Journal Times articles cement it. WP:GNG met. Thanks to Tokyogirl79 for cleaning it up. 78.26 ( I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I understand the concern about promotional content in this article, given that the subject is a person whose professional career has been dedicated to promotion. I do think the reference in People is relevant--when a large-circulation general-interest publication picks out an individual from a relatively obscure behind-the-scenes business sector for special mention as a pioneer, it can be taken as a legitimate marker of that person's notability. On the other hand it's only a short paragraph. But on balance I think there's enough out there to verify the subject's significance, and Tokyogirl79's edits have helped reduce the promo tone. Direct Marketing has a lengthy profile of him [25](HighBeam). -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 16:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Feel free to speedy renominate if you desire! SarahStierch ( talk) 23:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Randall Kaplan

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

Article is entirely promotional, insufficient sourcing under WP:GNG. User name of article creator, "Collarcard," indicates close association with subject of article. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, unless substantial coverage in national, international or specialised technical published sources can be cited. I'm not seeing anything resembling notability. He was involved in the founding of the infamous Akamai Technologies (our article is probably unduly critical, btw), but does not seem to have been been significant in it. Documents such as this do not appear to mention him. His patent for a collar stay card (United States Patent D678661) appears to be eminently non-notable (1 hit on Scholar). Other Google Scholar hits are for a different, more notable, Kaplan. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 01:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article should be judged beyond the current version, with the information provided in earlier versions before some recent extensive deletions of unsourced but uncontroversial material. (Deletion of most of an article after it has been sent to AfD is not usually a good idea--it's better to point out at the AfD that the material is unsourced) He is reliably reported as a co-founder of Akamai, --the source given would appear adequate--as his role was business, not technical, that a tech document does not mention him does not seem pertinent The Justice Ball, beyond my initial skepticism because I have never heard of it, does seem to be a notable series of events. A $3 million investment in Tigertext is trivial, as is being a guest speaker at Northwestern. The article was apparently writen as part of a campaign on UrgentRx, which is not notable & is listed at AfD elsewhere. I do agree with Justlettersandnumbers that our Akamai article is terrible, in many respects. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Then at the most this can be merged into the Akamai article. This bio clearly fails WP:PEOPLE. There just is a paucity of stuff out there on this person, and when the puffery is stripped away you get a sub-stub. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree that the entry needs to be revised to be unbiased but he should be given an entry for the sheer fact that he helped found Akamai, [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.184.15 ( talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gamera the Brave. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Zedus

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

This does not establish notability independent of Gamera the Brave through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN ( talk) 02:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 23:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Corey Drumz The Original

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

Inadequately sourced biographical article about a non-notable musician. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. The current citations are blogs and closely connected sources. - Mr X 16:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Klezmer Local 42

Klezmer Local 42 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect that Klezmer Local 42 fails our strict Verifiability criteria. The sources the article cites are low-circulation outlets which may not pass WP:RS. I checked the Google News Archive, but found only one hit, and it was nothing but a passing mention. (I thank Yunshui for providing inspiration which helped me to write this deletion rationale.) — Unforgettableid ( talk) 05:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Azmyth

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

Previous AfD was closed as "delete". The article was later recreated by the single-purpose account "ToddAndrew445". But I still don't see any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I clicked through to half a dozen or so of the references, but I'm not seeing the significant coverage.

Please delete and salt, since whoever keeps creating the article has demonstrated that they don't understand our concept of "significant coverage". Any future recreation requests should be addressed to the closing admin.

— Unforgettableid ( talk) 05:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Cartoon Network's Wedgies

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

These 1-2 minute shorts from 3-5 years ago are even less noteworthy than the CN Groovies were. Somehow there's even a separate article listing all of them (even though this one's quite short and sweet). Paper Luigi T • C 04:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Pizza Night With Pizza Steve

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

Article is about a fairly recent weekly cartoon block that I just don't believe is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. All you'll really get from this page is schedule information. Paper Luigi T • C 04:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete Uggh, this shouldn't have even been a redirect. Redubbed scenes to create continuity between shows is a no-effort way to try to make a 'block' that only the kidcrufters and Nickandmore actually track. Nate • ( chatter) 05:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Delete i kept #Redirect Pizza night with pizza Steve (witch yes i made the article) but the IP User kept puting it back so i removed the show's episodes sence i didnt keep up on cn's schedule site and i know nickandmore and toonzome are not sources that yall need i found them off on cn's site and took a picture of the block with pizza Steve and mr.gus i do not care if yall get it gone completely or REDIRECT it but i still don;t see why Wikipedia needs it anymore Aozz101x ( talk

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Agreed or Disagree Delete it, with out redirect but it is a block with Uncle Grandpa characters (mr gus & pizza sieve]] will someway make people happy if we make a short section of it on Uncle Grandpa with out the episodes of other shows? CN On Facebook mentions the block very little but that just it. Aozz101x ( talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Alaska Airlines Flight 779

Alaska Airlines Flight 779 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a military cargo flight that crashed in the early 1960s. It has had no lasting effect on aviation or the military, and there have been no changes to procedures or aircraft design as a result. The soldiers who died were not notable enough for their own articles. (While it has a civilian flight number, it was a military charter; no civilians were involved, except for the airplane itself.)

Based on this, the article fails the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH, an essay commonly used as a guideline over at the Aviation WikiProject. Furthermore, it fails WP:GNG and WP:N(E). This article was prodded, and subsequently de-prodded, which leads us to this discussion. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû ( blah?) 03:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - According to WP:AIRCRASHthis was a civilian aircraft (albeit transporting Military personnel). It meets 2 of the 3 critera (Loss of Hull & Loss of Life) - Rehnn83 Talk 12:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It's a military charter, on a military route, flown by military personnel, carrying military cargo, following military regulations to fly to a military base. (Disclaimer: some of this is supposition.) Regardless of that, WP:AIRCRASH covers notability threshholds for inclusion in the airline's article and explicitly notes that to merit a stand-alone article it must pass the other notability guidelines ( WP:GNG, WP:N(E), etc). -- OldManInACoffeeCan ( Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 14:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Correction: the crew were all Alaska Airlines employees according to the Civil Aeronautics Board report. But my point is that it was not a commercial flight: it was a flight performed by civilians for the military. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû ( blah?) 02:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • WP:AIRCRASH distinguishes between "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft" vs. "airline and large civil aircraft", specifically using the word "aircraft" in both cases. Can you point to any part of this policy that would justify not treating a civil aircraft, owned by a civil airline and flown by a civil crew as being an "airline and large civil aircraft"? Maybe policy ought to be changed, but there is a clear meaning of all the words involved. Alansohn ( talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • That's what makes this case rather unique: the essay (WP:AIRCRASH is not policy) provides differing criteria for civilian and military aircraft, but military charters which are some middling grey area have no criteria defined. I think the important thing to note, however, is that the notability of civilian-or-military aircraft criteria is that for inclusion in the airline's article; the essay goes on to say that in addition to the incidents notability per that criteria it must also pass the general notability and inclusion standards for standalone articles. So even if this were to be considered a civilian crash per WP:AIRCRASH, it still would only merit a standalone article if and only if it passed WP:GNG, WP:N(E), etc. OldManInACoffeeCan ( Mukkakukaku's alt for public terminals) 04:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not only does this article fail WP:AIRCRASH, which details the general consensus on the subject, but it also fails WP:GNG and WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The military aircraft exclusion would apply if this were a military aircraft, but it isn't. As a civilian aircraft, this incident meets the criteria specified by WP:AIRCRASH that "The accident was fatal to humans" and that "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". This court verdict from the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit describes that "On July 21, 1961, while Northwest was operating the Shemya airfield under the terms of its lease agreement with the United States of America, a DC6 airplane owned by Alaska and operated by it as Flight 779, crashed and burned near the approach end of Runway 10 at Shemya. All six crew members aboard the aircraft were killed and the aircraft was destroyed or substantially damaged." As a civilian aircraft flown by civilian personnel with loss of life and hull loss, the WP:AIRCRASH standard is satisfied. The sources here are more than adequate to meet any independent notability guideline. Alansohn ( talk) 19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The thing that's being missed is that the WP:AIRCRASH standard refers to inclusion in a type's, airline's, or airport's article. It goes on to note that a stand-alone article may be appropriate if both WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG are met, and the latter is not in this case; also, the "airline and large civil aircraft" statement is generally accepted by consensus to refer to passenger-carrying flights, not freighters - if only aircrew was killed, the "fatal to humans" criterion is not considered met. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • WP:AIRCRASH uses the word "humans" and it appears that the plane had an all-human crew, all of whom were killed in the crash. Even if the crew was made up entirely of robots, aliens and/or well-trained raccoons, you only knocked off one of the criteria and the crash resulted in hull loss, which satisfies the standard on its own. As someone suggested to me earlier today, you may want to get the policy changed if you believe that it's wrong. The sources are more than adequate to meet any notability standard. Alansohn ( talk) 21:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question: We have contradictory statements. Can someone provide evidence of the whether the crew was civilian or military? This seems to be the question. Nom says military but User:Alansohn suggests otherwise. JodyB talk 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Terracoin

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

This does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Multiple searches including Google News did not provide any substantial news coverage aside from another minor mention. This probably isn't something that would receive that much widespread coverage and maybe only in that market industry but I haven't found anything good aside from blogs (Blogspot, market blogs, etc.). They've received small coverage because of the market they're in (cryptocurrency) and being compared to Bitcoin. Not much farther than that. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nonexistant references beyond minor mentions, not notable. What's Wikipedia's policy towards "Buy this product here!"-type links like the ones in the Major markets section anyway? Smite-Meister ( talk) 23:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - cryptocurrency article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search revealed incidental mentions, blogs and forums, but no RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. L Faraone 06:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Timekoin

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

This does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) reply

-- Please cite the unreliable sources, I noticed 6 of them at the beginning that lead to reliable and verifiable information. What level of missing significant coverage are you basing your opinion on? Knightmb ( talk) 01:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It's because there's no news coverage or even in-depth news coverage for that matter, such as tech and computing magazines. It's not that primary sources aren't acceptable, it's simply that without third-party news coverage, everything is based on the company's own webpages. Forum links are unacceptable and blog hosts like Blogger and Blogspot don't tend to be reliable because, although some of it may be true, it's not exactly a reputable source for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My first Google News search found nothing and subsequent searches failed to find anything else. Zero news coverage. Honestly, this is a good article and has some good information but it'd be nice to see some news coverage. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I would bet that over 95% of the articles in wikipedia do not have or need some news link. Why should this article be any different? Why can't this article be in-depth if nothing else out there is? I think pulling the article would only hurt wikipedia and those looking for 3rd party information since all the search engines that point to the article would come up as an error. Either that or you'll get a crowd of people that just keep re-creating the article if it is gone, or simply created at another online encyclopedia? 96.33.255.92 ( talk) 04:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect to Our Lady of Fatima University . SarahStierch ( talk) 00:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Fatima Medical Center

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable. the only coverage I found is events happening there eg person X was rushed to this hospital. LibStar ( talk) 00:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Per the comments below, I'm changing my !vote to redirect as well, as the hospital is already mentioned in the parent university's article. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 10:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

List of Weapon X members

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

This is an unnecessary grouping of characters not critical in understanding the main topic. Anything relevant to Weapon X should be listed within the plot summaries of that article, and anything else should be handled by character articles and lists TTN ( talk) 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 01:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by Acroterion as a term obviously made up by the creator of the article. ( WP:NACD) Jinkinson talk to me

Stryde

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

Non-notable neologism. Possibly made up. - Mr X 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Administrator's comment. I'd deleted another article by the same creator under CSD G10. I was waiting for a subsequent edit to see if this article could go A11 or G3. There's been no further activity from the creator, so I'm tempted to dispatch it A11. Is there opposition? — C.Fred ( talk) 01:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch ( talk) 00:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Richard K. Lublin Teaching Award

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

This is an article on an award within a single university. Some of the individual who have received it are notable, but most are not--they're junior faculty or "professors of Practice", not researchers who would be notable under WP:PROF. It is possible for a professor to be notable for teaching, but that would require a national level award, not an award like this. I see no evidence that anyone outside of the particular university has any interest in this or has written any usable sources. The only non-Duke sources are the personal web pages of awardees who have now moved elsewhere . DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 01:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Lacks independent sources. Out of some 34 references or external links the only ones not generated from within the university that gives this award to one of their faculty members are 3 ex-Duke faculty CV's at other universities and a Youtube link. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

PAM Transport

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

The article does not contain any secondary sources and so the page should be deleted per WP:V and No Original Research, unless someone takes an interest in starting a proper article. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 01:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 06:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Peak debt

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

Tagged with neologism and COI tags, but I would add that it's utter nonsense. 'peak debt' is a variant on the meme that we're heading to disaster because of government debt, most famously pushed by the now debunked paper Growth in a Time of Debt. While that is a famous or infamous result I see nothing here that's independently notable. This might have seem an important result three years ago but it's been thoroughly discredited since. JohnBlackburne words deeds 17:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The US government recently shut down when it reached its borrowing limit. And sovereign default is not utter nonsense because it has happened repeatedly. The title is not a neologism as the words are quite standard and their meaning seems clear. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Also, FWIW, see this article which I read just this morning. It seems clear that economics currently a laughing-stock and the entire field seems to have been discredited. We still ought to say something about it though, even if that it's bunk. Warden ( talk) 19:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I agree with much of what JohnBlackburne is saying, but unfortunately fears concerning peak debt are still politically potent, acting as one of the factors constraining public spending all across the world, to a great an unnecessary extent in U.S., G.B. and Europe. Yes the idea has been discredited, but not widely so, from what I've been able to ascertain some of the German / North European elite are sincerely in thrall to the idea. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 22:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • There is a political viewpoint that tries to reduce debt, but I've not stated in terms of "peak debt". Either people claim debt will reduce growth, i.e. per Growth in a Time of Debt, though that has now been largely discredited. Or they claim debt will impact future growth, but this ignores both history and disregards normal cyclical spending patterns (where debt is borrowed in recessions to be repaid in booms). Or deficit reduction may even be used to justify spending reduction so taxes can be reduced. That was many people's interpretation of Paul Ryan's budget, and of Republican fiscal policy in general. But there's already an article on people with such fears: deficit hawk. I've never seen it discussed in terms of "peak debt" as the idea of a hard limit is easily debunkable.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I think we're doing this wrong arguing about the correctness of this. The problem, which I should have identified earlier, is that there are no good reliable sources, either to establish it as a proper theory, or to establish it as a notable fringe theory. The only academic source, [26], is talking about something else, the point when debt peaked, not a borrowing limit. There is nothing of similar quality that describes it as in this article, and a search finds nothing better. There is certainly nothing that describes it as a notable fringe theory. I wrote that it's easily debunkable but I can't actually find sources on this as it's not something anyone's bothered to do, at least not with regards to 'peak debt'. Though here's Krugman, pointing out that UK debt hit 2.5× GDP only 60 years ago, suggesting that there's no limit under that for debt to GDP ratio.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Interesting, I recall quite often seeing "peak debt" mentioned in the FT, but not much has came up from a search - the hits were mostly using the term in a different context, or they were just passing mentions. The FT did link to this interesting article on the relationship with peak oil, though I guess many wouldnt consider the oildrum reliable. I've downgraded my vote to weak keep, though I still think the coverage in sources already in the article are sufficient. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 01:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • delete This appears to be a bit of OR in that it's not even clear that the various cited authors are talking about same thing. The notion that there is some upper limit to indebtedness is intuitive but there doesn't seem to be a formalization of the idea; all we really have is that several different people used the phrase, not all in the same context. Meaningful book and scholarly hits were distinctly lacking beyond the couple of cited works. Mangoe ( talk) 03:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Antonio Nardini

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

Non- notable person. Indications of local note only; insufficient evidence of notability beyond his role as a local historian. It may be interesting to note that this person's biography was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia following an AFD there. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 15:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
While Nardini is not the primary focus of the article, his role as a local historian and former fascist are discussed. This is substantial coverage along with the dozens of articles in Italian. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 11:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The coverage I've found of him in Italian media all originate from the Barga region, where Nardini is a local historian. The evidence of wider notability is missing. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Thanks for Candleabracadabra's NYT find with significant coverage, I did more searching and found an additional source. It is offline but request verification at WP:REX (Source: ProQuest). It makes a direct assertion of notability "a potent symbol for Italian youth".
  • Eoin Callan. "Brave stand of soldiers ignored by their country", Financial Times [London (UK)] 26 Aug 2000. Quote: "A young man recruited to the local fascist party, who later became disillusioned, said war veterans such as Antonio Nardini were still a potent symbol for Italian youth."
I think with this international coverage, plus substantial local coverage, is enough to err on the side of Keep. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Although I don't have access to the full Financial Times story, there is a brief synopsis here which shows that the Financial Times coverage is for the same single event that the New York Times coverage is for: a group of Buffalo Soldiers (African-American soldiers of World War II) returned to Italy to commemorate a particularly heroic act by one of their members. Nardini happened to be interviewed by an on-spot reporter as a local historian of the event, and that story got picked up by FT and NYT and others. This still doesn't appear to me to indicate any significant notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 12:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bacon (surname). ( non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

N. Bacon

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

Unnecessary, incomplete and just a bad idea. We already have Nathaniel Bacon and Nicholas Bacon. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 11:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Absolute employment

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

Prod declined by someone who insists there are sources, but my searches turned up only books that use the term, not any that explain it. This fails WP:DICDEF, and the fact that it's been completely untouched for seven years should be testament as to how not-notable it is. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge probably to Employment-to-population ratio or Unemployment. As pointed out this is a term which is occasionally used, but the measure of employment is a major and complex topic. Most of the WP coverage is in the Unemployment article, but that is over long and does not do the statistical aspects justice, with the result it could be misleading. The best article attempting to deal with aspects of it seems to be Employment-to-population ratio but even that needs work. There is another article which is also very unsatisfactory at Effective unemployment rate, written by somebody apparently unaware of the wider topic or that there was a world outside the US - I suggest that should also be merged to whatever target is chosen here. The next stage is probably to split Unemployment to an article on (un)employment measurement but that is an editorial matter. The whole topic needs expert attention - I am certainly not the one and I am able to write this only because I have consulted somebody who for a short time had senior management responsibility in this area. A good article need not be over technical, but it has to be precise and explain the differences between measures and give examples where they have been used. I am told that the authoritative definitions used internationally come from the International Labour Organisation -- AJHingston ( talk) 10:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton |  Talk 03:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No delete !votes. ( Non-admin closure.) Alex discussion ★ 01:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Equity Awards

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

these awards that have only existed for 2 years fails WP:GNG. I find hits for "equity awards" not in Australia [28], and trove turns up hardly anything. [29]. nothing in a major Australian news site [30]. note I have also nominated the subcategories of the award which are on shaky ground if the parent is questionably notable. LibStar ( talk) 04:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
I can't support redirect of title, as there are numerous identically named awards in the world. LibStar ( talk) 10:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:BIODEL with no prejudice against early recreation provided the notability standards are met Wifione Message 11:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Meggie Royer

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

Delete, I think that this person while on her way to notability has not met the threshhold yet for WP:AUTHOR or the general notability guideline. Hell In A Bucket ( talk) 05:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 11:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Fake ABC

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

While this does appear to be a phrase used in popular culture I think it falls into the WP:NEO category. ParacusForward ( talk) 07:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Khartuwa. Wifione Message 11:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Balbalika Primary School

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

No indication of significance in this one sentence, also no sources provided and I couldn't find any. Alex discussion ★ 08:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 11:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Basic Concepts of Engineering Drawing

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

Original research, completely unsourced, unencyclopedic, promotion, fails GNG, no media coverage... Alex discussion ★ 08:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Not disputing the AfD, but why does being uncensored have anything to do with it? -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry I actually meant unsourced (but my grammar check proposed uncensored as a correct and I didn't notice it). Alex discussion ★ 18:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not notable. But I agree that the other grounds for deletion are misconceived. This is said to be a learning tool - by definition all such things should be original works whether books or computer programs, and since it is open source with no link it can hardly be said to be excessively promotional. Without independent reviews and/or evidence that others are using it it the topic fails, though, to get to first base for consideration as being notable. -- AJHingston ( talk) 12:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- Lacks independent RS references and, though the generic name makes a search relatively ineffective, a search did not reveal any significant coverage. It is unclear whether this is software, an educational curriculum, or something else - regardless of the format, this subject is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Dialectric ( talk) 21:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to San Beda Red Lions. Wifione Message 11:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Rome Dela Rosa

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

Article fails notability for basketball figures. NoyPiOka ( talk) 08:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Until he actually goes pro, he isn't notable (at least not yet); if he joins the PBA then the article can be recreated. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
That's not how it works; the "floor" is WP:GNG. If he surpasses that, he's good even if he's a high school player. The article doesn't explain that he convincingly pass WP:GNG though. – H T D 09:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 11:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jack Brierley Watson

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

BLP that has been unsourced for four and a half years. No significant coverage found. Michig ( talk) 10:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 11:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Alexander Michaels

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

promotional article, like ,any others from thiw editor no evidence of notability; student awards only ; trivial or promotional refs. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:NOQUORUM Wifione Message 11:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman

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

Seemingly pretty non-notable musicans Benboy00 ( talk) 14:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Mainpac

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

promotional article; trivial or promotional references; no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:BIODEL Wifione Message 11:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hugo Jamioy Juagibioy

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

This had been unsourced for a long time before I added sources just now. The sources I added were pretty much all the independent coverage I found. They don't really constitute significant coverage, and unless more can be found I don't think there's a basis for an article here. Michig ( talk) 15:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Milan Entertainment. I've redirected to Milan Entertainment after merging whatever could be merged. Wifione Message 11:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Jade Records

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

Non-notable sub-label of Milan Entertainment (itself of shaky, though more substantial, notability). No sources (either in the article currently or that I found through searches), no content relevant to the sub-label specifically (it seems to be more about the overall Milan company), etc. etc. Writ Keeper  ⚇ ♔ 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Widespread agreement that the article is unacceptable in its current state, and merging does seem to be a recurring proposal. However, with no strong consensus toward any of the three main options discussed here, this seems best dealt with by the editorial community. – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The Hollow Men in popular culture

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem The Hollow Men. Nominated for deletion per WP:IPC, WP:ROC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA: (A) trivia articles should be avoided (B) this is a collection of trivia that is not important to the T.S. Eliot article or the poem's article, and offers no substantive insight into those topics (C) the material isn't substantive enough to include or integrate into either of those articles, (D) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". (E) There is no context, and it's largely a list of superficial "hey, someone wanted to look smart, so they quoted Eliot. nothing more, just a quote." Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 18:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please retain. I see the above points but this article can (a) be of of use to cultural researchers and (b) keep all the trivia from being added and deleted again and again to the main article. It is in the end more important than the 250,000 or so K-12 school articles on Wikipedia. WikiParker ( talk) 00:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep No policy-based argument for deletion has been advanced, in that options of trimming and/or merging are not addressed, both of which must be inappropriate per WP:ATD for deletion to be a policy-based option. Jclemens ( talk) 03:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Several reasons for deletion have been advanced. They are linked above in the nomination. Both trimming and merging are addressed in points B and C. ATD is more than satisfied because none of the proposed solutions at ATD are possible. This can sit tagged for "cleanup" or whatever for a decade and it will never happen. Garbage with a tag on it is still garbage and still irredeemable. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 04:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • @Jclemens, the nominator offered a substantial grounding in policy and stated it wasn't worth merging. Your concerns sound like you ignored reading the nominator's initial statement above.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Hollow Men#Influence in culture per WP:IINFO, as a random (i.e., originally researched) and almost entirely unsourced list of references and allusions, both substantial and trivial, with no explanation of the relevance or significance of the individual entries. Information on the Nachleben of Eliot's poem—written in prose and citing judiciously chosen examples that are supported by sources explaining their significance in the reception or interpretation of the poem—belongs in the article on the poem itself. (I'm continually surprised that the message of Randall Munroe's satire hasn't penetrated more deeply into Wikipedians' consciousness.) Deor ( talk) 12:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • DELETE per nominator who seems to have cut-and-paste my rationale for AFDing The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture earlier this week. This is a mess of obscure references to mostly non-notable works a "me too" list of people who think they're cool and sound erudite because they've heard of Eliot. How many of them are just people mentioning "not with a bang, but with a whimper" to an audience too dumb and oblivious to know it? This isn't worth merging. It is the crufty epitome of useless indiscriminate trivia and needs to be deleted and not with a whimper.-- ColonelHenry ( talk) 00:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep When notable cultural artifact are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Spotting something that includes the word "hollow man" and deciding with no justification that it simply must be a reference to this poem is not a "notable cultural artifact" or "significant elements" of anything. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I agree with DGG's analysis. For whatever reason I missed the Prufrock AfD discussion, so I can't address whether there are relevant differences here or whether I would have supported keeping that article, but taking this one on its own merits, it's evident that the work has had great impact and a reasonable discussion of that impact would be too long to fit within the confines of the parent article. And while many don't like articles like this one, many others do, and there's no reason the subject can't be addressed encyclopedically. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • A perfectly reasonable discussion could easily fit in the main article on the work itself. The problem is that too many editors are not perfectly reasonable in determining that something is encyclopedically relevant and not trivia. Jerry Pepsi ( talk) 02:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Very selectively merge to The Hollow Men. There is already a section in the main article on the poem's cultural reception. A few lines of the most significant allusions will give the main article a boost. This article, on the other hand, is one of those dreadful collections of everything that has ever been said and done about a notable topic. This stuff doesn't belong in its own article or in the poem's main article. If this is kept, over 90% of it would need to be removed through our best editing practices. Them From Space 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or partial merge as above. Discussing the use of a topic in popular culture is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia, but it should not be a repository for every trivial mention and reference in every single piece of media in existence. Limiting it to critical, well sourced examples within the main article is enough. TTN ( talk) 17:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to The Hollow Men#Influence in culture as has been suggested already. The list is too long and thin for my liking but some items stand out as being worth recording and expanding on. The item which I felt was an absolute "must", Apocalypse Now, I see is already transiently covered in the article on the poem itself. However, the list is harmless, and might help future editors in expanding the section in The Hollow Men, so much the best thing is to merge any suitable material keeping a redirect and the history. Deletion would be absurd in my view since the material itself is quite satisfactory and attributable. The only issue for me is which items should be maintained in WP and in what manner they should be presented. It is a pity this could not have been left to the talk page to sort out. Thincat ( talk) 22:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per WP:BIODEL Wifione Message 11:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Celma ribas

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

I do not believe this passes the GNG for musicians. Google hits only facebook twitter and myspace, appears to have a second album possibly a low level release of 10,000 but article does not appear to evidence notability, very little if any evidence of third party coverage. Even if retained would need a substantial strip-down and re-write, though the last point is not in the criteria for deletion. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Texas School of Law. Wifione Message 10:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice

Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was PROD'd, although not by me. The argument in the PROD was "Non-notable organization, lacks multiple, reliable sources about the organization, is also extremely spammy." and I agree; this article appears to be a spammy promotional linkdump for a non-notable subgroup of the University of Texas School of Law and is not supported by anything that looks reliable that isn't directly linked to UT. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 22:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch ( talk) 01:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Coffee per CSD A11 (obviously made up). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Quartigorius

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable neologism. - Mr X 01:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Acorn spinning

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

Unsourced article about a seemingly made up game. Fails WP:NGAME. - Mr X 00:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Strictly speaking, no. The article would need to "plainly indicate[s] that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally" - Mr X 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Drat. Curses, foiled again. Dloh cierekim 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
Due diligenceUnsourced and unsourceable. could not find coverage, let alone significant coverage. there are unrelated g-hits of course. Dloh cierekim 19:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.amazon.com/No-Better-Time-Remarkable-Transformed/dp/0306821664/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385168006&sr=8-1&keywords=molly+raskin
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_26&oldid=1142630823"