From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 October 12 October >
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 merge to Danielle and Jennifer. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Michelle Brown

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

Seems to be an article about a minor (child) actress. The citations are not to reliable coverage about her, almost all listings and 'stuff on the internet'. There looks to have been heavy COI editing. As a duo with her sister she is barely notable (if at all). Not notable yet, in my opinion. Sionk ( talk) 23:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Kids Helpline

Kids Helpline (  | 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 organisation. The only apparently independent ref is actually a interview-based article with an office holder and no sign of independent journalism. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep It clearly satisfies WP:GNG. It is similar to the ChildLine charity in the UK, which has never been out of the news since it was created. scope_creep talk 20:10 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I added some journal paper/studies from Trove about it. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 04:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Its a significant community service which has received widespread publicity. - Shiftchange ( talk) 11:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 13:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Princess Christine of Mecklenburg-Güstrow

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

Non-notable person. The only reference is to an online genealogy, which does no appear to be a reliable source nor list references. The only reference has no in depth coverage, only a single line on this individual. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:21, 12 October 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 Boldly merged, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Tiffany Foxx Discography

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

Discography of barely-notable (if notable at all) artist. Contains no references with in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. redirect to artist article and PROD both reverted by creator. Stuartyeates ( talk) 22:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

New Demons (I See Stars album)

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

Non-notable forth-coming album. No evidence of charting or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. PROD removed without improvement. Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Keep - Doesn't fail any notability guidelines I know of. All info I see in article is properly sourced. Sulfurboy ( talk) 22:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Qualified Keep – The article is not properly sourced, 75% is cites are 1st party and 50% are multi-media. Citation coverage is meduim, IMO: The 1st six 'lead' sentences (loaded with proper-nouns and facts), are un-sourced, as is genre. [snag list not exhaustive] Copy-editing has improved, but is not pristine, again, as one might expect for a pre-launch topic, with a small/dedicated contributor crew. I see these issues as indicative of a future fan-page risk. – DjScrawl ( talk) 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
However, the above indicates (future) work-required – not lack of, soon anticipated, notability. Reasoned as follows: the band have 131,877 listeners on Last.FM, for scale they are ranked #14 nintendocore band and within two days of the album being leaked, is has reached 534 Last.FM listeners (est' 0.4% of the band's total audience). – DjScrawl ( talk) 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you have a reliable source that it's been leaked? Comments on a youtube video don't cut it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
At least academically, excellent point! Since, the 'leak assertion' relies of a page-cite I'm, as above, sceptical about. – DjScrawl ( talk) 12:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
This'll be clearer, I expect, on Monday PM (GMT) - when Last.FM's done it's weekly chart munging. Meanwhile, non-single-track, Ten Thousand Feet (see 'Listening Trend') shows an indicative spike. – DjScrawl ( talk) 12:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
NB: It is also circumstantially evident that I've no axe to grind, here, beyond best practice. – DjScrawl ( talk) 12:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply


  • Keep for now. Album by a notable band on a significant label that is released in less than two weeks time. The band's previous albums have charted and received coverage, so this one will almost certainly do the same. Bringing these to AfD is a bit of a waste of everybody's time - you're not going to get a consensus to delete within 7 days, which means the album will be out, very likely along with associated coverage, before the discussion ends. If there's nothing to indicate notability a few weeks after it's out that would be a different matter. -- Michig ( talk) 08:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
I invite yo to read WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
You should perhaps read it yourself - it deals with speculation in articles about future events, not opinions expressed in AfD discussions. This album's release in confirmed. -- Michig ( talk) 09:34, 12 October 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Otherplace

Otherplace (  | 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 Marvel Comics 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) 21:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Providence (comics)

Providence (comics) (  | 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 Marvel Comics 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) 21:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:10, 12 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Jeff Halevy (Personal trainer)

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

Every source here is PR, or was written by him, or is not about him. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Recognized "fitness expert" often called exactly that by the press for information on fitness [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] with his own cable TV show. [6] Selected by Mayor Cory Booker of Newark NJ to create a city fitness program. [7] [8] -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Z-man 21:21, 11 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 21:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Fiction Magazine (Karachi)

Fiction Magazine (Karachi) (  | 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 evidence of notability of this Urdu-language children's magazine. The Urdu title فکشن میگزین

Google finds very little with most sources originating from Wikipedia. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

They are the top class magazines in Pakistan but they don't have any reliable source.It might be due to fact that Pakistan is too far behind in technology.So I disagree to nominate this article for deletion.--Usman Khalil 12:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman Khalil ( talk • contribs)
Hi. Can you help find reliable sources? It is not enough that other articles exist. Which may be deleted. Some of those are already tagged for lacking notability. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Hi Usman Khalil, I took into consideration that Pakistan sources are more difficult so searched in Urdu with no luck including within *.pk. I also noticed the magazine had no web presence or domain name, and the only contact information was a single @yahoo.com address. This evidence added up to think it was a very small magazine that was probably not notable. Of course you are right there may be nothing online due to lack of technology. I don't know how to respond other than in this day and age any notable media publication would have some information online, for example Phool (magazine) has its own website. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 16:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Z-man 21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of wp notability. Lacks RS coverage -- as everyone agrees.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a single independent source. With the magazine not even being online, we even run into difficulties verifying the info in the article (I know that something doesn't need to be online to be notable or used as a source, but this is rather extreme, I'd say). -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:34, 12 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 21:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Accenti Magazine

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "That something exists does not make it notable, and no notability has been asserted, nor has it been verified in reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here as an article." Fiddle Faddle 20:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  • What do you mean by "no notability has been asserted"? Do you expect the article to explicitly say "Accenti Magazine has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? No article does that, and this "assertion of notability" trope has no basis in Wikipedia policy, so please stop repeating it every time you propose an article for deletion. What counts is whether a topic is actually notable. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Initial sourcing to pass WP:GNG doesn't look good. Magazine's are hard enough to source, and this is a specialized one, so it's even harder to find reliable secondary sources. We can say that magazine is "an English-language, upscale publication aimed at the 1.5 million Italian Canadians across the country and italophiles in Canada and all over the world". [9] The website ranks 41k in Canada. [10] The Canadian government invested in it (and many other magazines). [11] A writing and photo contest has mentions eg. [12] [13] I don't think this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Perhaps the article creator has more information about newspaper, TV and magazine articles that have been written about Accenti Magazine to help it pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 17:16, 27 September 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) 15:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Z-man 21:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I really don't want to nominate this article, it could be notable. Unfortunately I can't find anything on it. There is a Facebook page, with 378 links. Apart from that there is the site, and nothing else, except Facebook. It all points back to the site, with no third party sources. scope_creep talk 21:57 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and scope_creep. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Bhogal

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

Not notable. Mentioned in a list of clans produced by one of several caste associations but not discussed in any significant manner in reliable sources. Sitush ( talk) 08:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Z-man 20:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Lack of sources also suggests this is a non notable subject. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Bit unsure about this article. Seems from Google Books, the article is accurate and factual, i.e notable. There seems to be a fair number of these Sikh warrior clans, but there is no individual entries on them, or included as details as part of caste articles. Also on top of that, that article is woeful, none or bad sources, badly formatted, and worked on for over a year and it still looks terrible/no links. Although it could be an Indian speaker who created it and is having problems working in English. scope_creep talk 19:21 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete as lacking sourcing. There are lots of things in google that use this word, but they don't all appear to be the same thing. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:40, 17 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Southridge Capital Management

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

Pure promotion of a nonnotable private financial company Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete I agree. It's a puff piece for a private fund management company, very new and entirely non notable. scope_creep talk 22:01 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. All of the sources are either primary sources or press releases. It claims notability, but via clients, in violation of our rules against that. It's really just a run of the mill investment company. Bearian ( talk) 22:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:40, 17 October 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 Atban Klann. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Grass Roots (Atban Klann album)

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

Deprodded because "sources exist", but the only sources that turn up on Google Books are passing mentions, false positives, or passing mentions. Delete or redirect to The Black Eyed Peas. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 ( talk) 20:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I'm not sure if a Delete is appropriate yet. Given that they were signed to Eazy-E's label Ruthless Records in 1992, when the single was released, It wouldn't be hard to assume there was some music related print media coverage as a result of the label's support, even though the album wasn't released. Not finding it on the net might be an archiving problem do to the early date, and not a lack of coverage. Is this enough for a Keep? No, but given the connection to the very notable music group, I would suggest leaving prods that encourage music aficionados to hunt down those paper sources. Posibly even leaving the prod on the Black Eyed Peas biography page, next to listing of this album, as a citation needed prod. Otherwise, I support a merge. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 18:45, 18 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 21:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Group of Chaos

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

It is impossible to establish the notability of this group. There are two "sources", but none of them mentions the subject of the article. Vanjagenije ( talk) 19:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Source are scrap. No Google news regarding the group, and there was several arrests of members of the Anonymous group over the last 3-6 month. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 19:43 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources available to verify: existence of the group, 2-7 people, hacking exploits etc -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 03:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no notability nor verifiability. Cavarrone 19:08, 17 October 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 Visconde de São Jorge. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Viscount de São Jorge

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

Contested prod without improvement. This essay consists entirely of original research and would have to be rewritten from scratch to become neutral and encyclopedic. I'm also wondering exactly where and when this allegedly false information about the title was spread on Wikipedia. Any articles with diffs to prove this claim? De728631 ( talk) 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The article's author has now commented at Talk:Viscount de São Jorge. It turns out that there is already an article Visconde de São Jorge which Guilhermegirao finds to be inappropriate. In fact there are unsourced allegations made in that article against one Guilherme Manuel Gonçalves de Oliveira de Sousa Girão (note the username). I have advised him that such issues should be dealt with at the existing article instead of writing counterstatements. De728631 ( talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I have now removed the negative BLP-related statements from this verion of "Visconde de São Jorge" and restored a previous more neutral revision (which is still not very good in terms of references). De728631 ( talk) 17:30, 12 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 22:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Circumflex (web framework)

Circumflex (web framework) (  | 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 evidence either in the article (which has been tagged for over a year) or found through searches to establish that this framework is notable. AllyD ( talk) 17:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nomination. I couldn't find any RSes either. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no indication of notability, no reliable source coverage found for this software, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 16:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 07:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply

King Damien Lazora (Nick)

King Damien Lazora (Nick) (  | 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 book (no Wiki article, or I would have redirected) does not seem to be notable, let alone this character. TheLongTone ( talk) 16:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If at all, an article about the book should be written first. De728631 ( talk) 17:22, 11 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 22:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Abdul Khaliq Hazara (assassin)

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

Only notable for one event. PROD was challenged with the comment: "Removing prod per WP:BIO1E, which specifically says that assassins of major political leaders generally should have their own articles." I'd argue that Mohammed Nadir Shah isn't a major political leader (compared to the guideline's example of Archduke Franz Ferdinand), and the penultimate paragraph of BIO1E is more applicable – he played a major role in a minor event. In any case, GNG trumps all, and I can't find anything that would amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. DoctorKubla ( talk) 16:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The King of a country is a major political figure. Wikipedia should have an article on this topic, his name appears in many Google Books, and other websites some of which call him a hero and martyr [14] he does appear have greatest importance for the Hazara people in that regard (tripod is not a RS just linking as evidence). Coverage is "significant" for notability purposes when it says "He assassinated the king of a country", that's plenty significant. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 18:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - An individual who committed a regicide, clearly a seminal event in the history of the country. Substantial web footprint, albeit mostly blogs. I have no doubt that sources exist to get this beyond GNG, although it is likely that many of these sources are non-English. Carrite ( talk) 16:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. GNG most certainly does not trump all: in particular it does not trump common sense, which tells us that the assertions that a king is not a major political leader and that his assassination is a minor event are nonsense. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:24, 12 October 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:CSD#G11 SmartSE ( talk) 20:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

InEvo

InEvo (  | 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 creator (and only editor who added content) is the founder of the company, the article is written like an advert and the article isn't very notable. Your Friendly Neigborhood Wikipedian ( talk) 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has provided a keep !vote indicating withdrawl; no non-!keep votes. The Bushranger One ping only 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Chobham (disambiguation)

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

Please refer to Talk:Chobham. You will see that Chobham, like Derby, is about the place itself. Rightly, I believe, this has changed, due to other editor's actions and the principles articulated at Derby and elsewhere in policy. - Adam37 Talk 15:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Weak keep: The dab page is redundant to the hatnote at Chobham except for the see also Cobham (disambiguation). If this dab is deleted, we lose a link to a set of items with a similar spelling. Chris857 ( talk) 15:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
After Peter James's post, and looking, we now have 6 items named Chobham, so we need a dab page. Changed to Keep. Chris857 ( talk) 15:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I have cleaned up the dab page per WP:MOSDAB - it previously linked to the primary topic Surrey town through a redirect. The hatnote there could be probably trimmed, but the dab page is valid and useful. Pam D 13:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. It is now PamD, however, many of the articles there would be very rare to be abbreviated, as I am sure you agree. As for the use of the word town, that is quite different from a village in the UK so that has been corrected. - Adam37 Talk 18:24, 12 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 22:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Black Dog Scotch Whisky

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

Does not seem to be a notable company and article is written more like an advert. Denniss ( talk) 15:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: Some of the advertising mess was just created in the last day or two. I just did some cleanup – please take a look. — BarrelProof ( talk) 15:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep: I created the article. I think the brand is notable. Its existence since 1883 would suggest that. The whisky is owned by United Spirits Limited (second largest spirit company by volume), and is one of the few Indian owned Scotch brands. The article cites several reliable sources, and the whisky has won several awards. There was also a "In popular culture" section which noted that the whisky was prominently mentioned in a Bollywood film, but that was also removed in that edit. I completely agree with the advert part. Unfortunately, that is the result of this recent edit, which among other things has used Facebook as a source. That just needs to be cleaned up (might do it when I get time). BigJolly9 ( talk) 15:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very old brand, from a distiller created in 1883. The article is full of history of a company which I didn't know exist. Clearly notable. Good article, with good solid sources. scope_creep talk 18:11 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fictional medicines and drugs. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Derbisol

Derbisol (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • It was prodded but seems worth discussion. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 13:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There's no shortage of references available: a laundry list of scholarly journal publications and quite a few books from reliable publishers, to begin with. But they all say the same thing, more or less (Derbisol isn't a real drug. It's a fictitious entry used to exclude respondents who exaggerate drug use on surveys.) If there was a solid redirect target, I'd much prefer that, but I'm not sure there is. The scope is too narrow to redirect to scientific control. The context is wrong for a redirect to fictitious entry or survey methodology. Accordingly, I think I come down to supporting retention; there is more to say than the article does at current, and there are ample sources to support it, and, ultimately, that's the standard. Squeamish Ossifrage ( talk) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. There are a lot of sources out there, but the ones I found all seem to amount to anecdotal stories of coming upon a fictional drug, which really isn't about derbisol in particular, its role in surveys, history of use, etc. It is verifiable in reliable sources, so per WP:PRESERVE, a merge to a list of fictional drugs seems like the best target. Happy to change my recommendation if multiple in-depth reliable sources about derbisol in particular are found. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and Redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. I found academic mentions in [15] [16] [17], but just passing mentions, and that it's a fake name. No justification for a whole article on it but a merge is appropriate. Zad 68 02:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, perhaps rename. There is a difference here. The drugs in List of fictional medicines and drugs exist in fictional worlds of particular fiction stories and in the real world are merely parts of those stories. The names of derbisol and shimeron and metabene and nazuphan are used not in entertainment fiction but to catch out people who inaccurately report which drugs they have taken, and could be put in an article about "nonexistent drugs used as trap names" or similar. See http://sswr.confex.com/sswr/2005/techprogram/P2677.HTM . Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 05:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Tommy Castillo

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

Nothing more than a CV listing his work illustrating comics, no attempt to explain Castillo's claim to notability. However, he's regularly trotted out at Comicons so has some sort of fan base, maybe there's something I'm missing here. In my view, working as an illustrator of comics shouldn't be a fast-track to a Wikipedia profile. Sionk ( talk) 11:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. He worked on some popular projects but nobody has written about Castillo in reliable sources (passing mentions). The most notable is the Batman comic but that was a collaborative effort with a couple dozen artists. He's illustrating a Kickstarter graphic novel 100 Days of Death that might be made into a film in 2014, could become notable with that. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 19:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with Green Cardamom. The chap has been working in the industry since 1989, but I can't find anything special that makes him notable. Seems to be working mostly in DC Comics scope_creep talk 20:59 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the player now meets WP:NFOOTBALL, he meets the notability standard and the snowball clause applies, as Phil will be tossing snowballs with his spoon before this gets deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Luke Adams (footballer)

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 ( talk) 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep based on the 4 international appearance for the New Zealand national under-17 football team at the 2011 FIFA U-17 World Cup and 3 international appearance for the New Zealand national under-20 football team at the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup.-- 2nyte ( talk) 12:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Are U17 and 20 considered "the highest level of football" per WP:NFOOTBALL? Tarc ( talk) 14:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Actually he is not in the team.... away on international duty. Simione001 ( talk) 23:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I hope you let his coach know, he still thinks he's a chance to play at right back. The-Pope ( talk) 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per GS. WP:NFOOTY is quite clear that international representation has to be at full senior level so the youth appearances noted above do not count, and there is no indication that he achieved anything during these or any other appearances that would ensure a GNG pass. No problem with recreation if he achieves this or plays in an FPL or if he plays at the weekend, the AfD won't be closed by then. Fenix down ( talk) 16:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Keep - now notable. In the loosest possible sense. Still a GNG failure, but as a young player happy to assume his career will now grow. Fenix down ( talk) 08:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Ilir Latifi

AfDs for this article:
Ilir Latifi (  | 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 previously deleted on notability grounds after an AfD debate. The repost speedy delete was removed without explanation. Fought only one top tier fight Peter Rehse ( talk) 07:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 07:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Latifi is still under contract with the UFC, I agree that one notable fight shouldn't warrant a page, but his other fights do have some analysis on them, with the potential for more notable fights to come soon, since he is still under contract. If he was to be released I'd agree as most people who have one fight in the UFC and not much else don't have nor warrant pages, but for now, No support. CMCyantist ( talk) 13:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment He's had no fights since the last AfD discussion, so he hasn't gotten more notable. The fact that there's a chance he could someday meet WP:NMMA is why I voted to userfy last time. The article can be userfied or deleted, but right now it doesn't belong in the main article space. Papaursa ( talk) 20:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. No objection to recreation of this article when and if he gets 3 top tier fights. Assuming he will is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is the third time this year this article's up for AfD and he still doesn't meet any notability standards. Can this be temporarily salted until he meets WP:NMMA? 204.126.132.231 ( talk) 19:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article should be remade if he gets 2 more fights in the UFC, but now it doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX ( talk) 05:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Bartosz Lech

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

Outside of some coverage of his failed bid in 2009 ( [18]) there's nothing else that seems to suggest notability, and even that incident doesn't seem to cover it - not everything that makes news equals notability; in Polish media this was really no different from men bites dog ("look, a Pole is a politician outside Poland"). Majority of others claims are unreferenced, and none of them seems to suggest notability (membership in a tiny political party, failed election bids, etc.). Chairmanship in Federation of Young European Greens doesn't seem to be significant, neither (the position is not notable, the organization is barely notable itself). It's now 3 years later and the lack of notability for this bio should be even more apparent now. CC 2010 prod and AfD's participants: User:Scott MacDonald, User:The Wordsmith, User:Volunteer Marek, User:Kotniski, User:Milowent, User:Divebomb. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: With the passage of time, I'd say the subject has not been shown to be notable. I also see there's no polish wikipedia version, it was deleted awhile back.-- Milowent • has spoken 19:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above, and I would also take with a pinch of salt the claim that this is the first Polish citizen to stand for the European Parliament outside Poland. Poland is and has long been a country of emigration, and very many people, probably millions, in other EU countries have dual citizenship. I see no reason to think that the source, even though usually reliable, has performed any checks as to whether any previous candidate has had Polish citizenship, and I don't believe that there is any way that such a check could be performed. Phil Bridger ( talk) 19:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Actually, I closed it as speedy as an attack page (it was a wordy but indirect attack on what I assume is a living person) Qwyrxian ( talk) 08:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Maximus Koruos

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

Miningpyropony ( talk) 07:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

This article is obiviously about a nonexistant creature (and shows no sign of being in a notable fictional story) and is using improper humor. -- Miningpyropony ( talk) 07:18, 11 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Greg Jacobs

Greg Jacobs (  | 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:WPBB/N Gtwfan52 ( talk) 06:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This is an article I created back in 2008.. the notability rules for baseball players were different back then, in that minor league all-stars and AAA players were notable. The rules have since been modified and I frankly forgot this article existed. He is not notable under the current guidelines. Spanneraol ( talk) 12:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 12:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:27, 11 October 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 Kansas City Royals minor league players. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Christian Colón

Christian Colón (  | 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:WPBB/N Gtwfan52 ( talk) 06:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep Colón was an All-American shortstop at CSU-Fullerton, which means the article passes WP:NCOLLATH and two time national team player, which means it passes WP:SPORTCRIT. [19]-- TM 10:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kansas City Royals minor league players as he is still an active player. Spanneraol ( talk) 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Spanneraol. Highly likely to make his MLB debut next year. [20] Sources exist (they just aren't in the article for whatever reason) but are insufficient for GNG at this time. Not much coverage from his CSU-Fullerton days. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 12:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol ( talk) 12:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 13:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge either one. Being the fourth overall pick in my opinion makes him notable, but I don't mind the re-direct.-- Yankees10 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Only if the sources are sufficient. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 12:04, 15 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Mady Hornig

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

When I came across this article, it contained one reference; it now has 10. My goal in nominating this article for deletion is to determine if other people think Hornig's article meets WP:ACADEMIC, and if so, then we will be able to remove the notability tag. Jinkinson talk to me 03:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment--Hornig appears to be a WP:BLP1E in that her autistic mice study seems to be what she is best known for. However, it has received a lot of media coverage, so maybe she does meet the guidelines for academics. This article also seems to have followed a similar trajectory as Thomas Burbacher--it was created by an anti-vaccine editor as a coatrack for her controversial research that had been misinterpreted by the anti-vaccine movement, then was de-coatracked, leaving very little content behind. Incidentally, I am having a hard time finding any additional reliable sources that talk about Hornig and her research; all I can find are papers she has published and books she has written. Jinkinson talk to me 03:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 from GS. Xxanthippe ( talk) 22:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC). reply
  • Keep. Six papers listed in Google scholar with over 100 citations each, including two as first author, on varied topics (including e.g. bee colony collapse as well as the autistic rodent stuff). I think that's enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 and demonstrate that she does not fall into WP:BIO1E. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- clear pass from citations and external references. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 00:54, 17 October 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 all. m.o.p 03:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Alien Mephilas

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman 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.

  • I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
Nurse (Ultra monster) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alien Shaplay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Windam (Ultra monster) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TTN ( talk) 16:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:17, 11 October 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 Juggernaut (comics). Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Crimson Gem of Cyttorak

Crimson Gem of Cyttorak (  | 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 Marvel Comics 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) 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is well-known as the source of Juggernaut's power and so is covered in multiple sources such as 500 Comicbook Villains; The Encyclopedia of Super Villains; The Supervillain Book; The Marvel Comics Encyclopedia; &c. Warden ( talk) 11:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Juggernaut (comics), no indpendent notability outside of its association with the character. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge – Per The_Bushranger. This fictional item is not independently notable. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 13:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

ECW/FMW December PPV

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

Unremarkable pay-per-view events. No citations whatsoever. Notability has not been established, and fails WP:GNG. — Richard BB 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The same user that created this article has a history of creating articles for non-notable events. This also easily fails the GNG by a mile. LM2000 ( talk) 21:56, 11 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll

Hell's Bells: The Dangers of Rock 'N' Roll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything that meets our criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). No Rotten Tomato reviews, etc. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep and improve per meeting WP:NF through coverage, analysis, and commentary in multiple book. I am not swayed that this film did not make headlines, nor that Rotten Tomatoes does not list Christian reviews of a Christian film. Reminds me a little of something like The Atomic Cafe, another "classic" documentary whose views are now seen as hilarious... but in this case one whose reviews and sources will more likely than not found only in Christian film review sources and books... and the multiple book coverage meets the requirements of WP:NF. Schmidt, Michael Q. 22:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Question What multiple book coverage? And why are you suggesting finding sources on a different film? Dougweller ( talk) 11:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I found some sources just at first glance and I found mention of it in an academic text. In any case even if I can't find another source, there's enough on the article now to show notability. It's a small film but it does seem to have a cult following and was considered to be an important example of how music was seen in religious lights by some of the more conservative persons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I was wondering if I should withdraw this until I looked at the sources. First, let me repeat what our guidelines say:"The kinds of sources that are considered independent are those that have covered topics unrelated to the one at hand, such as periodicals. Books that discuss a film in a larger context or among other films are also potential sources; see this section's last paragraph regarding the amount of coverage in a source. Press releases, even if they are reprinted by sources unrelated to the production, are not considered independent." and "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides". Christian Film Guide [21] fails as insufficient to fully establish notablity. The Phoenix New Times link [22] is to its events calendar, and fails for that reason. It shouldn't even be used in the article where its 2 short paragraphs make up almost half the article (I suspect using this much, besides failing WP:UNDUE, may be copyvio, but I'll check). And the book Baby Boomer Rock 'n' Roll Fans: The Music Never Ends doesn't even mention the film although it is used as a source for the article. This seems to leave us with two sources, both I think probably meeting our criteria at WP:RS, Filmmaker (magazine) and Pitchfork Media. Maybe that would be enough to meet notability, but Filmmaker is actually just reproducing part of the article by Deusner, so it isn't really a 2nd source. This leaves us with only one reliable source with significant coverage, and I'm not sure that's enough. I am sure that if the article stays that we need to represent what Deusner actually says much better than we do now. Dougweller ( talk) 11:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:04, 11 October 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. postdlf ( talk) 04:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

2013 Berlin helicopter crash

AfDs for this article:
2013 Berlin helicopter crash (  | 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 can be summed up as "One police officer died in an accident." Now, half a year later, it is clear that WP:EVENT (the relevant notability guideline) is not met: There was widespread media coverage, but only during a short news cycle. It therefore also runs against the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Evidently, there has not been any lasting significance. True, there was a short [Berlin town hall] parlimentary debate (which, by the way, was more about the question whether large-scale anti-hooliganism excercises should be carried out at all rather than with the accident itself) and the BFU invesigates into the accident, but this is pretty routine: Whenever a member of the police dies on duty, it triggers some kind of an investigation. The same is true for air accidents, because any crash results in an official response. Have a look at the Interim Report for example, which does not only cover this helicopter crash, but also a number of further, utterly insignificant accidents. Therefore, any measures taken in the aftermath of this accident can be described as pretty routine, and therefore add nothing to its (alleged) notability.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) FoxyOrange ( talk) 11:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Speedy keep (as article's author). The notability has already been discussed in the previous AFD where no consensus was found. Unless significantly new arguments for a deletion are presented, this article should be kept. De728631 ( talk) 15:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The crash happened on 21 March, the article was created on 22 March, and an AfD was initiated within an hour. Indeed, it was closed as "no consensus" one week later, on 30 March. I waited half a year before filing this second AfD, because now we can see clearer if WP:EVENT is passed. The (new) deletion argument is that this guideline is not met, because there has not been any continued coverage.-- FoxyOrange ( talk) 16:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange
It was still in the news a few days ago, so the coverage does continue: [23]. De728631 ( talk) 17:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - It is clear that this doesn't meet the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWS, which, as a policy, all articles must meet to be retained. There has been no longer term repercussions of any type, no changes in procedures, no airworthiness directives, no equipment changes. It seems to be just one unfortunate accident that left one officer dead.- Ahunt ( talk) 12:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep People died in this accident no matter if it was an aircraft or helicopter is in accorance with WP:AIRCRASH.- Martinillo ( talk) 15:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The fact that a person died in this accident does not make it notable by any Wikipedia criteria. Hundreds of people die in car accidents everyday and no one would argue that those are notable accidents and that each should have its own article. The person who died was the pilot of the Eurocopter EC 155, a light aircraft, and so it doesn't make the inclusion criteria of WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt ( talk) 15:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As mentioned above, the fact is that this does not meet the criteria for
  • Keep it's a mid-air collision between two aircraft, therefore, an unusual event. Most times, aircraft crash into terrain or birds. -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 06:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Actually from the available information it seems to have been a simple dynamic roll-over where parts from the accident aircraft hit another aircraft on the ground and therefore not that notable. - Ahunt ( talk) 10:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not notable as per WP:NOTNEWS. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 05:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. In no other context is fatality a notability criteria. WP:AIRCRASH is "advice" and poor advice at that. Stalwart 111 12:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS per above. The article lead is perhaps misleading some into believing this was more sensational than it actually was; there was no mid-air collision, just a landing accident. Tarc ( talk) 14:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There being one fatality does not make the accident encyclopedic. Edison ( talk) 15:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Similar light aircraft accidents in the UK have been deleted even though they received substantial national coverage at the time. WP:NOTNEWS.-- Charles ( talk) 20:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete—Piling on at this point, but WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline and it sates "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-notable." This crash doesn't meet either of the two exceptions offered by this guideline, and doesn't have enough lasting coverage to make it notable under the GNG. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 13:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Cheley Camp

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

Advertising piece that fails WP:GNG The Banner  talk 11:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No real coverage in reliable sources, no actual assertion of notability (being "one of 46 Colorado camps accredited by the ACA" and noting that 9 million kids will attend all camps anywhere is lacking). If there was any real evidence of notability, the article's tone could perhaps be salvaged, but there's no there there. CoffeeCrumbs ( talk) 06:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing's really asserting notability of the camp itself here. Fails WP:GNG by itself. Red Phoenix build the future... remember the past... 17:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree. Though the article's tone might be salvageable, its notability is dubious at best. At this point - speaking as someone who loves Cheley and has made attempts in the past to fix the article - it's probably not worth saving. HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 00:41, 14 October 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 Al Capone. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Albert Francis Capone

Albert Francis Capone (  | 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 redirected this article, and was reverted by Brother William ( talk · contribs). This person is 'notable only' by his famous father - and notability is not inherited. I suggest therefore we either delete or redirect. Giant Snowman 09:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to Al Capone. Most of this information is redundant, but a 3 or 4 line summary of the article would be appropriate for the main article. -- Simone 09:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there is a lot of biographical content out there in places like this. Look at the results of the google book search link above.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
...and where is the independent notability i.e. away from his famous father? Giant Snowman 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep We should keep this, I don't see why everyone is crying about it, I read the article and it was informative..I never knew Al Capone had a child. Deleting it is illadvised because it would remove that information about the Capones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.86.83 ( talk • contribs) - originally posted on AFD talk page
You have made a case for a section in the Al Capone article about his son - but not a seperate article. Giant Snowman 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I undid the redirection as there had been no discussion about its deletion. Further the article was not incorporated into the parent article, which still contained links to the original (causing an infinite loop). I would like to see it kept and with an expansion of the information about his assassination threat on Robert Kennedy. ~ Brother William ( talk) 14:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
...if you want to see it expanded then why don't you? Providing the sources are out there, of course - and somebody related to a famous person making threats about another famous person does not make them notable. Giant Snowman 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This article fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Pure and sweet. PrairieKid ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Agree - merge to Al Capone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian ( talk • contribs)
  • Merge He doesn't have any notability apart from his famous father. Mattlore ( talk) 09:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, without the "Real mother" section. The book that section is based on is listed published by "Recaplodge LLC." I find no evidence such a publisher exists; however, the Capone family evidently owned a Recap Lodge. The book must be self-published. Chick Bowen 03:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I went to the article because I wanted to know about him. Notable means worth having an article about and the son of the most famous gangster ever - what kind of life do the children of notorious gangsters have? - is certainly worth an article. A lot of the information would be out of place in the article on Al Capone. The article should be filled out. What did he do for a living? But keep definitely. Pliny ( talk) 07:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Kaki West

Kaki West (  | 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 apparent evidence of notability. The roles are trivial, and there's essentially nothing else DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Bing_West#Personal_life rather than deleting in case she ever does make it big. Google News found some foreign results here and here but they are hardly sufficient as there are more photos and less actual info. Another Google News search provided a blog which is also hardly sufficient. Basically, she doesn't have much on her resume and thus not much to build a good article, actress or model. Apparently, she posed in Esquire but the only links supporting this are a video and blogs. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  1. Comment A Redirect here on the basis "in case she ever does make it big" would justify a redirect for every child of even a moderately notable person. It would also encourage the entirely irrelevant addition of information about all their childrens' careers in the article on their parents. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think the redirect is a good idea. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. She is a very minor actress, single scene, single episodes and not really done much else. The Bing West has a single small sentence about her with a link to this article. Keep it, but remove the link. scope_creep talk 14:52 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Once I removed the IMDB reference there isn't enough content to pass WP:NMODEL. Hasteur ( talk) 15:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Carl Boyd, Jr.

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

Prod removed without comment by an IP who appears to have COI, as said IP has added a lot of unsourced info. Prod rationale was "Unacceptable sourcing. Nothing but false positives found on Gbooks and Gnews." Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing but passing references in local media. Fails WP:GNG Levdr1lp / talk 04:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not the first time this specific person has had a swipe at having an article, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Boyd, Jr. I don't think issues from two years ago have been resolved. tutterMouse ( talk) 10:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Local Conservative radio host that has been included in various interviews when larger shows need to cross off specific boxes on their demographics card. Until this BLP gets a multi-market reach there's no justification for us hosting a BLP. Hasteur ( talk) 15:05, 18 October 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) 06:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Ling Chen

Ling Chen (  | 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 individual is not notable enough to warrant a WP article. LT90001 ( talk) 00:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Notability not apparent here. There may be a push by plastic surgeons and dermatologists to force a Wikipedia presence for PR purposes. Kenneth Kim is another that should be revisited. Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC). reply
  • I've noticed for years that there has been such a push by physicians of all flavours, but especially by surgeons and even more especially by plastic surgeons. There seems to be an idea among such people that a Wikipedia article is something to be created along with Linkedin and Facebook pages for promotion. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree. Fails WP:BIO. There must be a titanic amount, well, a few 10's thousand medical professionals coming to USA from China. Really nothing to make here special. scope_creep talk 14:59 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_October_11&oldid=1142223143"