From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 February 27 February >
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 Speedy delete. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons (G7 speedy deletion by author request) some time after this AfD was created.

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp× g 06:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Controversy between Atrazine use and Frog Populations

Controversy between Atrazine use and Frog Populations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Controversy between Atrazine use and Frog Populations discussion belongs on the Atrazine article page and the topic does not merit it's own separate article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Vlad Feier

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

BLP prod removed by WP:SPA article creator, in spite of that fact that this very spammy bio article still lacks a single reliable source. I do see a couple of interviews at video hosting sites but nothing that I feel amounts to anything near meeting our requirements for WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, at this time. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • To call a small biography that has references from different sources from all around the world, very spammy bio article, means there is a lack of respect, first for the person who wrote the article and second for the subject. The article has references from international film festivals official websites, international publications, IMDB (the most reliable source for film and TV). the article has been improved and polished. And there are not a couple of interviews at video hosting. There is just ONE interview on a video hosting and the rest are written articles in important publications around the world (Romania, Chile, Mexico). As well I think everybody wants to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Alexander Botar ( talk) 4:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Alexander Botar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTYET. He has not yet received enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. None of the article's sources qualify as Reliable Sources. I did some additional searching to try to verify the claim that he had a film at Cannes (neither of the sources supplied for that are Reliable) and I couldn't find it; instead I got the impression that this was some kind of special category created by Cannes for short films, not part of the actual film festival. Correct me if I am wrong. In any case, the subject needs to become more notable before qualifying for an article here. That could happen in the future. To User:Alexander Botar: if you want, you can ask the closing administrator to "userfy" the article to you; that means it would be put in your own private Wikipedia space, not part of the main encyclopedia, where you could save the content of the article until better sourcing becomes available. You should not return the article to the encyclopedia's main space until there is significant coverage from mainstream publications. If the result here is "delete" and you try to repost substantially the same article without significant improvement, it would get speedy-deleted. -- MelanieN ( talk) 14:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nominator and MelanieN. Article doesn't meet WP:GNG. mikeman67 ( talk) 23:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Creative Talent Bureau

Creative Talent Bureau (  | 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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Not (yet) notable by our criteria. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • The coverage comes from sources that are very reliable: from IMDB, the most reliable source for film (a place where any submitted information has to be checked and just after that published) to some of the biggest publications in Romania, Mexico and Chile in the business. The article has been improved and more references has been added. And before any proposal for deleting, improving an article should be the first step, so we can create quality and accurate articles instead of good looking ones. Alexander Botar ( talk) 3:52, 27 February 2014 — Alexander Botar ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • On IMDb and reliability, see WP:USERG. And in this case, the IMDb entry was contributed by... "Creative Talent Bureau". [1] AllyD ( talk) 10:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any dissenting voices. It'd be a good idea if those who keep opining Keep here (and at the last AfD) actually put some of those sources into the article though, or there'll inevitably be a 4th AfD. Black Kite ( talk) 19:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

WeeMee

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

Couldn't find any reliable independent sources, also the article doesn't contain any. Only source contained is the WeeWorld website. Delete or merge into WeeWorld, although that article seems like a massive advert for the game. ~~ Sintaku Talk 23:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Withdraw - I did realise there were some sources for it. I did a simple Google Search and couldn't find any reliable ones. Don't know why they aren't in the article after the last AfD nomination. ~~ Sintaku Talk 10:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 02:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 01:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Jack Box

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

WP:SIGCOV is not met, the source blurb from an Advertising publication says almost nothing about the Jack character besides the title, the 2nd source is company website promotional, and is the Carolla interview (I admit it was entertaining) a WP:RS, is there anyway to confirm that the person interviewed is truly the voice of the subject of the article? Per WP:BEFORE, I can't find any better sourcing, after trying several different phrasings this paragraph from Time was all I came up with... this even surprised me as he is so well known thanks to all the dollars spent buying airtime for his commercials... merge doesn't seem viable as there's not much beyond promotional cruft here which isn't already said at Jack in the Box... Roberticus ( talk) 22:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but maybe merge. There's certainly significant coverage of Jack's evolution and functions in the context of Jack-in-the-Box's ad campaigns: Los Angeles Times [3], AdWeek [4] [5], Fast Company ("one of the most effective and enduring marketing campaigns since TV was invented") [6], Encyclopedia of Major Marketing Campaigns [7] (this one has a nice bibliography of additional coverage). Plenty of encyclopedic material could be written about this long lived character. Whether there is a need for a separate article, or whether there's enough space to keep it all at Jack in the Box#Advertising, is a matter of editorial judgment. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 04:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw I'm willing to withdraw this, I feel I was a little off target nominating this and thanks to Arxiloxos who found & added more sourcing to the article in short order. Roberticus ( talk) 13:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 18:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Austin Highsmith

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

Unable to find reliable, third-party coverage of this actress. [8]. This brings her short of WP:GNG.

Please note Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#IMDb.

Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker talk 22:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In only one of the three films listed is she even notable enough to appear in the Wikipedia article cast list. In one case the film has a 22-member cast list, and she is still not notable enough to appear on it. Even with Dolphin Tale her role seems to have been very minor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - subject's roles to date do not appear to satisfy WP:ENT, and I'm not finding significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gong  show 00:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 18:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Kimberly VoDang

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The best I found was this article which devotes one sentence to her and says the pageant she won was an online vote. Other than that, nothing. The "magazine" currently cited is a blog with no indication of editorial oversight. Huon ( talk) 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

List of WWE personnel

List of WWE personnel (  | 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'd rather a bullet be put in this thing and start fresh than constant arguments. Vjmlhds 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Sarcastic support Yes, there's no way this pointy move will cause more arguments. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
No reason to delete provided Disputes happen on Wikipedia, and debates will happen. You simply don't delete articles over a dispute. Since I broke the content off of List of professional wrestlers nearly a decade ago, this article is one of the most edited, most viewed lists in the history of Wikipedia, as it would happen. Unless you provide a valid reason, I don't see a reason why this would be deleted. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Withdrawing Nomination - What's the use? Vjmlhds (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
We have a discussion in the talk page and somebody decides to delete the entire article? Keep, of course. I don't see any argument to delete the article. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A childish dispute between two editors is no reason to delete. Rusted AutoParts 22:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I said I'm 'withdrawing the nomination, so let's put it to bed. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Rami Levy

Rami Levy (  | 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 one-line article with one unformatted source has been sitting this way since its creation 3 years ago. Not sure if he's even notable. Yoninah ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete - single line and a single team website reference. Not sure how it meets notability as it stands.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sportfan5000's sources seem convincing, and have convinced participants here that this article should be kept. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Fag bomb

Fag bomb (  | 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 don't think this controversy has any WP:LASTING significance. As I searched for relevant sources, I found almost all of them to be from late 2001, with little to no coverage beyond to indicate how this was any different than any other culture war dust-up (n.b., this story about the bomb exploding in 2012 is from a satire site). -- BDD ( talk) 21:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- BDD ( talk) 21:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A trivial incident from over 12 years ago of no lasting significance. Coverage was brief and fleeting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Would be worthy of mention in some military scandal article, but do not seem to find anything other than a category.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, or possibly merge. A notable incident that was magnified by the ongoing controversy of gays in the military that was only resolved a few years ago. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Where would you merge it? -- BDD ( talk) 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
It should be kept but if there are very similar cases to this then potentially being part of a larger narrative would make sense. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I searched on the message written on the bomb, and did find sources beyond 2001, which I feel is an arbitrary date. Google Scholar hits including: Pascoe, C. J. "Notes on a Sociology of Bullying: Young Men's Homophobia as Gender Socialization." QED: A Journal of GLBTQ Worldmaking 1 (2013): 87-103. And: Mann, Bonnie. Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. Oxford University Press, 2014. I think it's worth considering changing the name of the article, as recent sources do exist but "fag bomb" has come more as meaning calling someone a faggot - dropping the "fag bomb" - like F-bomb is saying "fuck." Sportfan5000 ( talk) 23:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • As i look at more of the sources available i think a rename is not needed, but maybe some redirects here will do. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 10:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
2001 isn't an arbitrary date; it's when this happened. -- BDD ( talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I specifically mentioned the penultimate source as a satirical one. And I believe the time stamps on the others confirm my initial argument that this controversy didn't have lasting impact. -- BDD ( talk) 17:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I think the subject meets GNG. Clearly the incident is notable, and a good article is possible. Adding the context of the then huge issue of gays in the military, which was a political wedge issue for many campaigns, including presidential ones, its unsurprising that the incident garnered coverage. It might not be an overwhelming chapter, but it is surely a notable one. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I've read those sources. Snopes confirms it happened. There are the original news stories. An opinion piece mentions it in passing, which doesn't establish notability. And the satirical piece, which is mildly interesting but worthless as a source. So far, no reliable source connects it in any meaningful way with broader issues, and I see no truly significant coverage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I disagree obviously, i have included a few more sources below which demonstrates, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction, that a good article is easily attainable, and sources exist meeting at least the GNG.
  • Delete  Fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, it seems like I need to list the scholarly sources so it's more apparent that this is not just a fleeting incident, etc., and that GNG has been met if nothing else.: Sportfan5000 ( talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Freccero, Carla. "They are all sodomites!." Gender and September 11: A Roundtable: “They are all sodomites!” Signs 28.1 (2002): 453-455. This piece from the Chicago Journal, discusses, "Two images: a cartoon of Osama bin Laden being sodomized by a US bomb with a picture of the penetrated twin towers in the background, and a news shot of a bomb headed for Afghanistan with the words “High Jack this Fags” scrawled on it."
    • Endsj⊘, D. Ø. "The queer periphery: Sexual deviancy and the cultural understanding of space." Journal of homosexuality 54.1-2 (2008): 9-20. The fag bomb is included as part of "The association of normative sexuality with the geographical center and sexual deviancy with the geographical periphery represents a pattern of thinking that has stayed with us in different guises throughout history. The article traces this pattern and some of its complex ramifications from the ancient Greeks to the present."
    • Pascoe, C. J. "Notes on a Sociology of Bullying: Young Men's Homophobia as Gender Socialization." QED: A Journal of GLBTQ Worldmaking 1 (2013): 87-103. Discusses the image as part of homophobia being a feature of adult masculinity.
    • Francis, John. "Hegemonic Sexuality: Theorizing Sexualities in the Discourses of Dennis Altman, Joseph Massad, and Jasbir Puar: Gender Theory and the Study of Asia, Africa and the Middle East." discusses the image in light of homo-nationalism, and possibly recasting those being bombed as inferior, as a gay person. "While writing “High Jack This Fags” on a missile could have suggested homophobia before 9/11, the use of “fag” in this case is less invoking a homophobia and more suggesting the shift of Arabs into the space of subordination formerly occupied by gay identities. Queer then becomes not an expression of identity against the hetero/homo axis, but the Muslim terrorist who is “feminized, stateless, dark, perverse, pedophilic, disowned by family.” He cites Puar, J. K., 2006. Mapping US Homonormativities. Gender, Place & Culture, 13(1), pp. 67-88. who makes similar comparisons.
    • Journal for Crime, Conflict and the Media 1 (1) 23-36 ISSN 1741 1580, The Media War on Terrorism1 Philip Hammond.Discusses the incident as part of exploring how militaries, especially the US, manipulate media messages, and what part the media plays in being complicit.
    • Harrington, Carol. "Sexual Violence as a Political Technology." discusses the massage as part of the "sharp" military gender binary, "which Mitchell argues is essential to attracting men to the military creates cohesion across the centralised hierarchy necessary to military organisation. While accepting the individual subordination required by military units, soldiers are also constructed as powerful men: military culture underlines masculine power through emphasis on men’s superiority to and control over the feminine. The existence of this sharp gender binary is clear from reflections by and about soldiers from a variety of contexts, for example ‘Hans’ reflects on his time in the South African Defence Force: ‘the fit virile male is the archetype in the army, who can take punishment and keep going ... [w]omen are definitely considered one of the lowest forms of life in the army’. We can also see it in the way military actions and weapons are imagined in terms of phallic power, targets are feminised and penetrated,"
    • Owens, Patricia. "Torture, Sex and Military Orientalism." Third World Quarterly 31.7 (2010): 1041-1056. This articles discusses the message as part of the debate about "recent American torture practices, particularly the use of discredited anthropological texts to validate long-held Orientalist assumptions about the sexual vulnerability of Muslim males. Such practices are placed in an historical context of older imperial constructions of sexually deviant Muslims as well as of more general forms of gendered and sexual subordination required for war. American torturers intended to produce very particular objects of torture—ones willing and able to confess their ‘true’ orientation in terms of a binary hetero/homo sexual code established in 19th-century Europe."
    • Morris, Scott. "Literacy as resistance." (2009). Discusses the LGBT community response, and how it was limited to only certain aspects of the situation. "When tolerance is reduced to learning how to be polite so as not to be divisive and internalizing narrow codes of acceptance to minimize bigotry (both important goals that should not be minimized), institutions of power are too frequently left outside the investigation and the structural causes of the derogation and degradation of fellow humans are left intact."
    • Lipkin, Ed D. Beyond diversity day: A Q&A on gay and lesbian issues in schools. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003. Discusses this incident as part of its look at homophobic bigotry and heterosexist systems.
    • Puar, Jasbir K. Terrorist assemblages: Homonationalism in queer times. Duke University Press, 2007. (noted above in "Hegemonic Sexuality: Theorizing Sexualities in the Discourses of Dennis Altman, Joseph Massad, and Jasbir Puar: Gender Theory and the Study of Asia, Africa and the Middle East.")
    • Tulin, Edward L. "Where Everything Old Is New Again-Enduring Episodic Discrimination Against Homosexual Persons." Tex. L. Rev. 84 (2005): 1587. Discusses the incident in the national treatment of LGBT in recent years, especially in mass media culture.
    • Harris, Stanley E. "From shame to pride: History of recovering from Judaeo-Christian homophobia." Journal of Bisexuality 9.2 (2009): 141-186. Discusses the incident in light of the changing attitudes towards male rape in Judaeo-Christian culture's militaries. "As the culture has become more secure during the last 500 years, its homophobia has slowly subsided. By the late 20th century, the culture had become secure enough to tolerate the emergence of the gay identity movement. Still, Western culture remains homophobic enough to polarize most male bisexuality into straight and gay identities and lifestyles. As cultural recovery from homophobia progresses, bisexuality may gain more acceptance."
    • Jackson, Paul. One of the Boys: Homosexuality in the military during World War II. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, 2010. Discusses this incident as part of a look at how gays in the military have fared since World War II.
    • Lamonte, Jon. Attitudes in Britain towards its Armed Forces and war 1960-2000. Diss. University of Birmingham, 2011. Discusses the incident in context of comparing how British society and military looked at LGBT issues in the military, as compared to the U.S.
    • Mann, Bonnie. Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. Oxford University Press, 2014. Explores this incident as part of the desire to cast American armed forces as superior in every way. Even at the expense of insetting LGBT people, and those being bombed.
  • Keep While a couple of the sources above are more "mentions" than discussions (e.g., Harrington), some are not (e.g., Jackson), and are sufficient to demonstrate not only GNG but also to show a continuing return to this incident in works made years after the event (e.g., Mann), showing WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE, with moderate but not enormous WP:DEPTH. I don't see a lot of WP:LASTING, but on the whole, this is enough. -- j⚛e decker talk 20:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I would have thought this trivial, but from the material presented it seems to be the sort of thing that is referred to enough that people would expect to find it here. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Understandably, reasonable people would be reticent to use the title "Fag Bomb" in their reporting and research. It may make sense to move the article or at least ensure redirects got readers here. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 03:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as WP:SNOW. ( non-admin closure) — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 19:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

WrestleMania XXX

WrestleMania XXX (  | 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 the CRYSTALBALL test. This event isn't scheduled to take place until April of 2014. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep passes GNG and the Crystal ball guidelines don't apply because preparation for the event have started to take place ie matches are being set for the event and that the event is most certain to take place on April 6, 2014. If we went by the This event isn't scheduled to take place until April of 2014. then Super Bowl XLIX, Super Bowl L, Super Bowl LI, and Super Bowl LII need to be deleted also for the same logic.-- Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: I'm not proposing the deletion of the Super Bowl articles just stating the fact that if WrestleMania XXX is deleted for Crystal vios then so should they. I'm not indorsing any deletions at this time.-- Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: this event is currently being produced. It is the next event to take place with current news being reported on what will be featured. In the last week alone 2 matches and the special host of the event has been revealed. This event is going to happen. It is a current event, not a future event.-- Will C 22:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — Clearly passes WP:GNG. If this was going to be nominated it should have been a year ago, nomination is pointless now. STATic message me! 23:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Even if this event doesn't happen, which I guess is what the nom means by WP:CRYSTALBALL, the subject still passes WP:GNG. LM2000 ( talk) 02:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Soon enough to be current.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Is there anyone who thinks this isn't going to happen? Anyone? Sources for so-far matches, venue, time, date; the only way this isn't being held is if something impossible happens to the Superdome. Nate • ( chatter) 02:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Or if something happens (or is pretended to happen as a publicity stunt) to one of the athletes (like they OD on something or get shot or something), and that's never happened before . . . — {{U| Technical 13}} ( t • e • c) 12:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • That won't matter even if it happens, which it has. The event will still go on. Owen Hart died during Over the Edge (1999) while Chris Benoit was supposed to have competed at Vengeance: Night of Champions when he killed himself. The events still happened and this event will still happen. The plane holding the entire crew, wrestlers, and anyone else will have to blow up for it to not happen. In essence, that will still make the event notable that people died in route to the show.-- Will C 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Agree per Will. Do we seriously think Vince McMahon is going to go to tell the Superdome 'yeah, we're canceling this, nevermind' for wrestling's Super Bowl/FIFA World Cup equivalent? Definitely not seeing that happening and this nomination is getting to the quixotic threshold quickly. Nate • ( chatter) 18:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
It would actually be more notable if it was cancelled. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There's far more speculation on your part that it won't happen than on ours that it will, if you're going to use arguments like "what if someone dies". — Richard BB 18:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL - "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Blindingly obvious keep. Nominating this is one of the most ludicrous ideas I've seen. I have no idea why this wasn't a speedy keep, as it doesn't even come close to failing the crystal test. Carry on, people. — Richard BB 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Escalon Medical

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

Insufficient evidence that this company meets WP:Notability guidelines. A previous version was deleted as an expired PROD so I'm using AFD. Note: This is a student project - if this company IS notable, we can help the editor find reliable sources that demonstrate the company's notability. If it is NOT notable, USERFYing rather than DELETING may allow the editor to complete his class requirement. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 20:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I was going to relist this, but I ran into the problem described at User talk:Mr.Z-man#closeAFD stopped relisting and bugzilla:61953. Please no-one relist/close this just yet so that the bug can be investigated. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, yes they're listed on the stock exchange, but I see only routine coverage. Does not meet WP:CORP yet. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Delete They are listed only on Nasdaq, which does not confer or even imply notability ; it is different from NYSE listing, which often does imply it, though we do not accept it as absolute proof. I have already given advice to the student project that the safest way to avoid fruitless work is to stick to NYSE companies. (in general student projects should make sure to select topics that are quite certain to be notable, and if the ambassador or instructor are not experienced enough to tell, they should ask in advance. This is really our problem, in not providing sufficient support, but it's hard to deal with projects that don't know they need the support.) DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The stronger, policy based, arguments are made by those arguing for deletion. Dpmuk ( talk) 01:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Oz Chiri

Oz Chiri (  | 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 musician Rinkle gorge ( talk) 20:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The three footnotes are to primary sources. The other "references" are primary sources (press release type material at multiple sites; in some cases, the text duplicates among multiple links). In any case, there's no significant coverage (reviews, articles about him, etc.) at reliable, unrelated sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. El musico mencionado tiene una vasta trayectoria en muchos paises latinos incluidos Argentina, Brazil, Colombia y paises en Europa Como Italia, España y otros, la informacion en la pagina es veridica. Monosaver13 ( talk) 17:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
— Monosaver13 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep. I have been following Oz for the last 12 years in all his shows through Florida, he is well known around this area, he plays as a solo artist and with his Band Blue Embrace. Gtr frenzy ( talk) 19:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
— Gtr frenzy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • delete fails WP:MUSIC. sources provided are not reliable. LibStar ( talk) 10:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can find no coverage in reliable sources for him or any of his listed bands, just self-promotion. A sentence describing his band "Blue Embrace" seems to be copied from their MTV.com artist profile (be aware that MTV.com artist profiles can be submitted by anybody, and so are not considered reliable or third-party). — Gwalla | Talk 18:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
None of those links are reliable sources: they're user-made a UVerse music directory page, a link to the Vevo video, a primary source, and an unreliable gossip site. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
You are totally incorrect and once again poor and erroneous in your judgment, post a link where an user can create an account with at&t with vevo or with any other links posted, clearly statement from an unreliable so called moderator. 38.96.174.109 ( talk) 18:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I misread the prefix and assumed (I know, my bad) that it was a user's personal page. It is the UVerse service's profile page about the band. Still, there's no review or article there; it's just links to videos and other material generated like the band, so just like the Yahoo link to the video, it is not a reliable, secondary source giving significant independent coverage of the band. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: The first two links are just blogs reposting a music video posted on Vevo, which proves nothing other than that he made a video. The third is a list of musicians who've bought equipment from a manufacturer. The fourth is "Who Dated Who", which says right on it "Who's Dated Who? content is contributed and edited by our readers. You are most welcome to update, correct or add information to this page"; user-editable content is explicitly not considered a reliable source (yes, that includes Wikipedia articles). Instead of accusing editors of US bias and "jealousy" (seriously?), you'd be better off reading the guidelines on WP:Reliable sources and looking for things that fit the definition. — Gwalla | Talk 19:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Once again incorrect, there is no profiles in ATT&T and or VEVO, no artist can open a page neither in those places, not reliable YAHOO MUSIC? once again sir with all my respect you should try to moderate other than music, your lack of knowledge in this field is evident. here is another link from MTV ITALY and if i keep researching more valid links, also for your KNOWLEDGE the person named here is also the founder of that band, http://testicanzoni.mtv.it/testi-Blue-Embrace_14332106/testo-Devil-in-Disguise_19118927 , ONCE AGAIN WITH ALL RESPECT KEEP YOUR DAILY ACCOUNTING JOB YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS INSULTING 38.96.174.109 ( talk) 19:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I never said anything about profiles in AT&T or Vevo. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. I said that a video on Vevo was the only content on the uverse.att.net and music.yahoo.com links you posted, which is true. And yes, Yahoo Music is not necessarily reliable: the byline on that link shows it was posted by Tarot Records International, which is Mr. Chiri's record label. The MTV Italy link you just posted is just song lyrics. We are looking for things written about the subject in reliable sources. As far as referring to "moderators" goes, I am not moderating this discussion and neither is anybody else who has posted in it. We are participating, which any user can do. Moderation only comes into play when an admin closes the discussion after about a week and makes a determination of consensus based on the arguments. I suggest reading WP:Deletion policy and WP:Articles for Deletion to get a better idea of how this works, and WP:MUSICBIO for what would be required to keep this article. It'll save you some frustration. — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have been following this article for few days and analyzing all the comments posted, I am a Canadian Researcher that has been related to the music business for more than 35 years and also I have DONATED SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS to Wikipedia because of the quality of some of their articles, Seeing the arbitration in this article and several wrong facts such as the comment from the user above me Stating the The Recording label submitted the video to yahoo or any other network, let me explain that Recording labels DO NOT SUBMIT MUSIC TO YAHOO, GOOGLE OR AOL, Tarot Records International is the label and it is posted by the network to let people know who has the rights and who legally released the music, Example: MTV airs a video in which at the start and ending displays the label, song name and Artist name, THAT IS INFORMATIONAL AND UNDER ANY WAY SUBMITTED BY ARTIST AND OR PRODUCER. Wikipedia is currently under scrutiny by several researchers as their loosing the informational value once had, due to users or administrators flagging or posting erroneous statements, I have seen erroneous comments like artists reflected in manufactures pages because they buy equipment from them, THAT IS A VERY POOR AND EXTREMELY INCORRECT STATEMENT, MANUFACTURERS POST ARTISTS IN THEIR PAGES AS A MARKETING TOOL OF THEIR PRODUCTS, OTHERWISE GUITAR CENTER OR OTHER COMPANIES WOULD HAVE MILLIONS OF MUSICIANS POSTED IN THEIR PAGE JUST FOR THE FACT OF PURCHASING THEIR PRODUCTS. Once again I WILL KEEP DONATING TO WIKIPEDIA BUT HONESTLY COMMENTS AND OR POOR JUDGMENTS LIKE THESE USERS MAKE ME DOUBT ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE PEOPLE HELPING OUT WIKIPEDIA. The person mentioned in this article DOES NOT OWN THE RECORDING LABEL AND WAS ONCE APPOINTED AS CEO and that even if that statement was true SHOULD NOT INVALIDATE THE RIGHT TO HAS HIS ARTICLE POSTED, OTHERWISE PEOPLE LIKE FRED DURST WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE HERE SINCE HE WORKED FOR CAPITOL RECORDS WHEN HIS BAND RELEASED ALL THE ALBUMS, Lastly there is bibliography offline as well about this musician and in my HUMBLE opinion (something that is not used by several people commenting here) this article should be kept, I apologize for the incorrections in my writing since I am a native French Speaker. 38.96.174.115 ( talk) 19:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Are you aware that you have placed two keep !votes in this discussion? Your first being on March 3 at 17:39, and your second being March 5 at 19:53. You should consider condensing your arguments and votes into one comment so that your points can be more clearly considered by a reviewing administrator. Rinkle gorge ( talk) 15:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment: I think the preceding comment about me being canvassed to this discussion was placed in bad faith. Not only have I made over 1,000 edits, but I initiated the AfD, therefor making it impossible for me to have canvassed myself. Rinkle gorge ( talk) 16:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I agree, and that's why I removed the SPA and canvassing tags that 38.96.174.115 placed. It's not the only bad-faith SPA tag the user has placed.
Thank you Rinkle gorge ( talk) 00:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Your statement about my post and comment was posted in bad faith from you, without any tangible proof, therefore my assumption about YOUR bad faith is EVIDENT and in GOOD faith. 38.96.174.115 ( talk) 17:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Excuse me!!? Where is my other vote? how are you able to prove your statement?, I voted yesterday once, but I can see you are the one who started this deletion request, trying to diminish my vote and statement with such a bastard accusation that is not true SHOWS CLEARLY THE LEVEL OF YOUR EDITION AND HELP TO THIS WIKI. 38.96.174.115 ( talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: here and here. The page history is public. I figured you just didn't realize that wasn't allowed, since you seem to be inexperienced with AfD, but after you tried to add an SPA warning and a a canvassing warning to Rinkle gorge despite the fact that he has an extensive edit history and posted this AfD in the first place, and looking in the edit history I see you've attempted to delete opposing arguments [9] [10] [11], I am a lot less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. Disrupting the debate does not help your case at all. Cut it out. — Gwalla | Talk 17:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Me disrupting this debate? another statement without proof from a SO CALLED EDITOR THAT NOT ONLY POST WRONG INFORMATION WITHOUT ANY KIND OF BACKGROUND IN THIS AREA, keep working in your WWE area that is probably the ONLY area you are reliable, YOU NEED TO CUT IT OUT!. 38.96.174.115 ( talk) 17:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I linked the evidence in my post above. The page history doesn't lie. Look, I tried to help you out by linking you to information on how the AfD process works and what you'd have to show to demonstrate that this article's topic merits an article according to Wikipedia policy. You are interested in the subject, and you say you're a researcher, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to find sources supporting your position if they exist. Instead, you've insulted other editors, deleted their arguments, and falsely accused them of canvassing and of being SPAs. Anyone can verify this by looking at the page history. That's what the "view history" tab up at the top of the page is for. It is clear that you are more interested in lashing out at people you've decided are your enemies than in actually justifying this article's presence here. — Gwalla | Talk 00:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Comment:' This is my last reply about this issue, at the top of this page CLEARLY STATES THAT EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO POST OPINIONS, ONCE AGAIN PLEASE POINT WERE I HAVE "INSULTED" OTHER EDITORS? WHAT I CAN SEE IS THE FEEL OF "CAMARADERIE BETWEEN EDITORS" THAT IS HIGHLY STRANGE, ALL THE STATEMENTS POSTED BY YOU AND THE OTHER EDITORS THAT ARE SUPPORTING EACH OTHER ARE NOT FACTS, THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN FOR OVER 2 YEARS AND I FIND HIGHLY STRANGE THAT SUDDENLY 3 EDITORS THAT ARE IN CONSTANT CONNECTION EACH OTHER ARE TRYING TO HAVE THIS ARTICLE DOWN WITH FALSE STATEMENTS AS YOURS IN YOUR FIRST AND SECOND COMMENT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF BACKGROUND DO YOU HAVE OR POSSES AS WELL AS THE OTHERS EDITORS HAVE TO KEEP DENYING MY ARGUMENTS, SINCE ALL YOUR COMMENTS ARE WRONG, ONCE AGAIN AS A MONETARY SUPPORTER OF WIKIPEDIA I HAVE MY RIGHT TO COMPLAINT ABOUT YOUR STATEMENTS AND THE OTHER EDITORS, AS WELL AS YOUR IRONY STATING THAN THIS "IS" MY ARTICLE, YOU CHANGED THAT TERM TO "THIS" BUT I DO HAVE THE SCREEN CAPTURE AS LAST NIGHT WITH THE WORD "YOURS", THAT IS AN EASY WAY TO TRY TO HAVE MY OPINION TO BE NON CONSIDERED, ONCE AGAIN I STAND IN MY OPINION, IT IS SAD TO SEE THIS WEBSITE BEING "CAPTURED" FOR EDITORS THAT HAVE NON RELIABILITY IN SOME SUBJECTS. IF MY STATEMENT CONSTITUTES AN INSULT TO YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE IT IS THE WAY YOU FEEL AND NOT NECESSARILY MY INTENTION, AS FAR AS I KNOW INTERNET AND WIKIPEDIA IS A PLACE TO HAVE A FREE OPINION OR AT LEAST I THOUGHT I HAD IT BEFORE STARTING COMMENTING IN THIS TOPIC. LASTLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW MANY EDITORS CONTRIBUTED AS ME WITH MONEY TO MAINTAIN THIS PLACE, AND I FEEL INSULTED NOT BEING TREATED AND MY OPINIONS CONSIDERED AS THEY SHOULD (WITH FACTS). 38.96.174.115 ( talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trac

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

Cannot find any RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment I saw that article and dismissed it because it covers "Bugzilla, Trac, and JIRA" and when I looked didn't see page 2. Both Bugzilla and JIRA are notable. That's good evidence toward notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • ISBN  9781847191663 Walter Görlitz ( talk) 02:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Covered in a couple more books (which don't have trac in title) [12] [13] also at length, so I think it passes WP:GNG. Also compared with Bugzilla in another book here. There are some ~450 GS hits that mention it together with bugzilla [14]. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 14:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Definitely keep

Its used by many notable projects and it should stay when there are articles about for example Redmime or Apache Bloodhound which is Trac fork.-- Oranjelo100 ( talk) 12:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There are independent articles and books about this subject and those can be used to provide viable references. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 15:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. The article creator appears to be a WP:DUCK sock of indef-blocked Gulf Ventures ( talk · contribs), who is impersonating another Wikipedia editor. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Gulf Ventures

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

Article about an energy company that does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Rinkle gorge ( talk) 19:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Would the spa creator of the article like to say if he has any COI here like paid editing? Xxanthippe ( talk) 03:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC). reply

  • Delete, can't find a mention in reliable, secondary sources, except a trivial mention here. Most of the sources in the article are primary (Company's own website) and a few directory listings (unreliable), clearly failing the notability criteria for a company. I would like to note here that this company is different from the same name company based at Dubai and owned by The Emirates Group. -- SMS Talk 20:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, sole contributor is impersonating me, which is at the very least evidence of foul play. Dtunkelang ( talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : withdrawn by nominator. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Father's Day (United States)

Father's Day (United States) (  | 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's a copy/paste of Father's_Day#History. No need for a separate article. Father's Day was invented in the US, the celebration in other countries originates from the US, and they are heavily influenced by the US origin. Enric Naval ( talk) 19:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Dam Dama Dam

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

No sources. Google search reveals next to nothing. Very little mention of it anywhere online, and I can't find a single reliable source that includes an info that it's based on Comedy of Errors. Bertaut ( talk) 18:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: All points in nomination cancelled out now. Check the article. Also, the show meets WP:TVSERIES for having aired on National television Zee TV. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 05:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: All points have been addressed. Meets notability criteria.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Fabrice Etiennette

Fabrice Etiennette (  | 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 golfer – actually not even sure if this person exists. None of the reference links work or lead to useful info.

  • Delete. Possible WP:HOAX, but even if not, none of the article's current sources mention the subject, and I am unable to find anything helpful via Google.  Gong  show 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as likely WP:HOAX. Like Gongshow, I couldn't find anything on this person. ...William 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fergie (DJ)#Record Labels. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Excentric Muzik

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

This article should be deleted because it does not have links to reliable sources. None of the references provided discuss the record label in significant detail. In short, it fails WP:GNG versace1608 ( talk) 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - The article's content appears to have been copied from the first reference; I'm not finding significant coverage for this label elsewhere on the web. At best, since it was founded by a notable DJ, I have no strong objection to a redirect to Fergie (DJ)#Record Labels.  Gong  show 20:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Fergie (DJ)#Record Labels. No independent notability evidenced from article or from search for cites. Also, entire article is COPYVIO. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Article is quite confusing, includes the artist name Spectre too often. Tried an edit but don't know how to handle it any further. Beatport Link doesn't include label section, Article has no categories. Probably including copryright infringement... -- Saviour1981 ( talk) 08:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mentoz ( talk) 13:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Alan Dodd (Irish footballer)

Alan Dodd (Irish 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)

Contested PROD. Has not played in a Fully Pro League, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 18:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom, player has not played in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football or appears to have garnered significant, reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down ( talk) 09:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Mentoz ( talk) 12:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Alan Murphy (footballer born 1978)

Alan Murphy (footballer born 1978) (  | 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. Has not played in a Fully Pro League, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 17:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep ( non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Paul Newe

Paul Newe (  | 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. Has not played in a Fully Pro League, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and also WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The claim of over 100 League goals is quite an achievement, and one that cold indicate notability, but that is unreferenced. If further sourcing/coverage can be found to show notability please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - probably notable given his goal-scoring achievements. I'm willing to err on the side of notability. Can always be brought back to AFD in due course if GNG cannot be proved, but for now the assumption is sufficient. Giant Snowman 18:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - @ GiantSnowman: the article now has a reference to RSSSF supporting the claim for >100 goals. For me this would indicate that there is almost certainly significant coverage about this player, as he is one of only 42 players as of the end of 2012 to have ever achieved this. Would like to see more added though to further support GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 09:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW as an attack page. Bearian ( talk) 22:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ukrainian Neo Nazism

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

Attack page with unreferenced nonsense, WP:OR. It also goes without saying that neo-nazism could not have started in 1941 when the real Nazis were around. Sheesh. Historical engagements section is just baseless slamming of cities as "pro nazi". Delete ASAP Львівське ( говорити) 16:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete: No references, no content, what little it does have isn't factual...If this is eligible for speedy delete, I'd say that. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete: I tried for speedy delete but the admin said the article didn't qualify for whatever reason...delete for what above said, also, user just left this note on my talk page so it the 'disruptive editing' notion applies more now, msg: "I have a lot of material about neo nazism in Ukraine, you seem to be pro of that kind , I will put this matter on wiki courts in order to make sure that you are biased and do not let others write which goes opposite to your ideas." -- Львівське ( говорити) 17:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, no references, poorly written, controversial title. Besides, I strongly doubt that there's a significant neo-Nazi movement in Ukraine, warranting a stand-alone article. Brandmeister talk 17:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - very poor article with no salvageable text. It has been around for three days with no signs of improvement. The topic might be valid but if somebody wants to write an article on it the current article would be of no help Alex Bakharev ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - nothing here that's salvageable. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and start again -- This is a useless stub. I suspect that it is a left-wing POV of certain nationalist movements. The topic has so much POV involved, particularly in the present political situation, that even the title is an ATTACK article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Can be recreated later with sources and a better title. As it stands now, it's not even a useful start for a stub. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 17:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. A POV attack page.-- Galassi ( talk) 18:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)18:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. A disruptive POV page without sources. It's an attack page written to discredit Ukrainian protesters and justify Russia's recent invasion of Crimea. Calling dissidents and opponents "Nazi extremists" is one of Putin's favorite tactics.-- Rurik the Varangian ( talk) 01:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was not much discussion on the salting question, but what there was suggested it would be preferable. I've taken a bit of admin discretion and salted them, but with the expiration a few months before the events, which should allow creation when and if significant pre-event sourcing exists. -- j⚛e decker talk 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

2017 NCAA Skiing Championships

2017 NCAA Skiing Championships (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. Sporting event is still over three years away and has no meaningful coverage at this time other than the event is going to happen. Also nominating 2016 NCAA Skiing Championships for deletion. Except for the bits about where the event will be held, its a virtual word for word duplicate of the 2017 article and also too soon. ...William 16:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • References were added to both pages. Sorry I meant to do that from the start, which was just a couple hours ago. I'm somewhat new to all this so I'm as up to speed on the WP:TOOSOON details, I will read up. I'm also not sure if the references added (2-3 each page) are significant enough to stop the deletion or request for saving as a draft, but they are valid, solid references. Thanks! C$ ( talk) 18:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt until April 2017  Most of the article is written in future tense.  Wikipedia is not a bulletin board to post info about future events.  Applicable policies are WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  Same applies for the 2016 event, except salt until April 2016.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  Draftspace does not have sufficient support to incubate and manage an article for three years.  A case like this, an editor can request Userfy after the article is deleted.  I'm not personally opposed to change my !vote to Userfy if such is requested.  But we don't have an organized process for protecting mainspace from competing drafts or new versions, even for articles in draftspace much less userspace, so there is no guarantee that a userfied article would get posted if kept in user space for three years.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Both per above, but userify if someone steps forward who is actually willing to work on them. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Climatocredule

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT, should this be deleted or transwiki'd to English/French wiktionary? Tom Meakin ( talk) 16:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 15:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

History of the X-Men comics

History of the X-Men 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)

Short version: This article is completely redundant to the "Publication history" section of X-Men.

Long version: Back in 2005, the article X-Men was a mess. It was overlong, unsourced, and filled with POV rants, trivia, and hoaxes. On September 6, 2005, the editor Onomatopoeia set about fixing this. However, instead of simply deleting the bad material, he cut-and-pasted it into a new article, History of the X-Men comics. The relevant discussion topic may be found here. Since then, X-Men has reached relatively good shape; it's concise yet comprehensive, neutral, and mostly well-sourced. History of the X-Men comics, on the other hand, is still a completely unsourced collection of POV commentary and trivia. It's obvious why no one has bothered to make serious improvements to the article in its nearly nine years of existence: the article subject is already covered in full by the "Publication history" section of X-Men, and the article itself was never anything more than a dumping ground for all the bad content from its parent article. It has no reason to exist. NukeofEarl ( talk) 16:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Probably best to just delete and start over. There's too much original research and opinion to easily fix this article. I say this as someone who is perfectly willing to spend a few weeks rewriting salvageable articles. While AfD is not cleanup, we also have the option of WP:TNT, which I think is warranted in this case. If it's kept, then it probably needs to be stubbed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep with heavy editing I do believe it can be salvaged there are definitely certain things mentioned here that just aren't mentioned in the general X-Men article. I might not be against a merge however.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) 10:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. A tangled web of original research, probably compiled with the very best of intentions, but not suitable for Wikipedia or compliant with our policies. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Retaining move to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Daughter of Princess Madeleine

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

Redirect to her mothers page. Doesn't seem to be notable to me just like Zara Phillips daughter, Mia Tindall who was born on 17 January, 2014. AY88 ( talk) 03:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 22. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 04:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unless they intend to legally name the child this exact name, there's no need for this to exist. Just a bunch of royal-cruft about citizenship and the like. Nate • ( chatter) 05:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The name will be published within a few days after her birth, at a government meeting probably on Monday. Then we will for sure have this article, and would have to re-enter the information if it is deleted. Articles about people are had if the person is notable, and even if the name is not published she does exist. We have a function for title change of articles.-- BIL ( talk) 10:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I would like to add that the fact that many have contributed to this voting hints that many pay attention to this subject, meaning the girl should be notable. Several of the opponents seem to oppose her because they don't like royalties, not because few know about the girl. Although they use the usual formula "It is" instead of the real "my opinion is", in this case something like "royalties are not interesting" instead of the real "I don't like royalties". The fact that several don't like a person does not make that person not notable.-- BIL ( talk) 20:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. With or without name, this child is not notable. She is not even expected to ever be notable. Her mother hardly performs any duties anymore, which is why her father is neither titled nor a member of the royal family. The child will in all likelihood be raised where she was born and where her parents have resided for years, which means that she will never perform any official duties or have any significant role within the monarchy. If, years from now, she becomes notable on her own or due to a freak accident claiming the lives of her aunt and cousin, having an article will be appropriate. As it stands now, it is not. Surtsicna ( talk) 10:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I say keep if we can add more information. There is no point in the Zara Phillips reference. Zara Phillips doesn't even have a title and she earned her article as well as being a grandchild of the sovereign but her daughter won't have a title either and will rank lower than her in order of precedence so she'll have to earn her article. There are other articles about royal children who haven't achieved anything. Princess Athena of Denmark has an article, but I think in her case she can have her article a) because her parents are relatively active in royal duties b)she has a title as Countess of Monpezat c)her siblings all have articles d)she is a grandchild of the sovereign. The previous few points were about Princess Athena, who is in similar situation but is at least is named. Also I want to point out that the currently unnamed is obviously 5th in line to the throne. That is a huge deal compared to those in other countries that are 30th in line (and some of them have articles anyway). If contributors really can't find more information about Princess Madeleine's daughter then delete, but otherwise no. But seriously, this article should have been created after the subject is named. -- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I'd say with much certainty that everything known about her is already there. She is, after all, two days old. For what it's worth, I am not convinced that we should have an article about a princess so insignificant that her parents got to name her after a pagan goddess. Anyway, the existence or nonexistence of another article is not an argument for either deleting or keeping this one, per Wikipedia's policy on deletion. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Actually according to the policy, an existing article can be noted so that Wikipedia will have consistency of it's articles. The policy just states that there's no guarantee that the article will be kept just because another one is.-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Tindalls daugther is 16th in line this child is fifth. Huge difference. And all titles will be revealed in a day or two.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 16:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The fact that we have an article about Princess Athena of Denmark does not mean that we should have an article about this infant, just like not having an article about Mia Tindall does not mean that we should not have an article about the infant. We should not have it because she is not notable, and nobody expects her to be. Given that her parents reside in the US and have little to no role in Sweden, it is obvious that she is in for no official role, not even as a minor royal. Surtsicna ( talk) 16:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • You just seem desperate if you try to convince me that this article is not notable. So do not even bother.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was hoping to keep this article in the format of Prince George's article- not that his article is any reason to keep this one, but just to follow the format would be good. However, his article was kept because people were able to add so much to it(not including the fact that he is higher ranked).-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 17:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Infants are not notable. She has done nothing of note. We do not even know how long she will live. We do not create articles on members of royal families who died at age 5 in 1770. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Just to point out that the editor above is wrong. It's true that most infants aren't notable, but some attend royal events with their parents and go everywhere their parents go which is basically what the parents do except that the parents are the ones who are invited. Princess Sophie Hélène Béatrice of France died at 11 months. Some say she is notable because of her death, because it cause her parents a lot of grief not to mention the fact that she had a title and rank at the time. The article also gives a detailed description of the baby.-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 21:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I agree. Infants are notable if they at birth becomes fifth in line for the throne of an entire country. And not very notable if they are 16th to the throne like that Tindall kid.. Here is true nobility. Your speculations about her untimely death is not just totally irrelevant im afraid but also frankly confusing as an argument for deletion. I do not think you own a magic ball to see into the future. -- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing user - The user who created this AfD has only made two edits and with those creating this AfD. And the user seems to not understand Wikipedias notability guidelines.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The user who opened the AfD could have been anonymous, known only by his or her IP address. The status is absolutely irrelevant. According to that logic, all articles proposed for deletion by administrators would end up being deleted. See argumentum ad verecundiam, a "common logical fallacy". Surtsicna ( talk) 22:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment According to Wikipedia Notability (people) Guide, the subject is notable if it is the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject. Currently the unnamed subject has been covered by a lot of sources, but still hasn't been named. Which is why I think it's a bad idea to create articles for the unnamed unless they've been significantly covered before they're born (in which case it's still a bad idea but it's an exception). Media coverage will come eventually if people are willing to keep this article long enough.-- Hipposcrashed ( talk) 22:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I am of the view that all royals are notable especially the ones that have been the subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources before even being born. Read WP:GNG.-- Laun chba ller 22:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • The thing is that we do not know if she is royal or not. She may as well be non-royal, like her father. Nothing has been confirmed yet. And whether or not all royals are indeed notable is very debatable. I sincerely doubt you could argue that Princess Rita of Liechtenstein is notable. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • It is already known that she will be fifth in line for the throne. And what does Princess Rita has to do with this article. Pointing to another unrelated article is not a reason for deletion in a separate case.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
        • There is no article about Rita. Launchballer said that he believes all royals are notable, and I pointed out to one member of a reigning family who could hardly be called notable. Anyway, being in line to the throne does not make one royal. Karin Vogel is not royal. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Again, what does Karin Vogel has to do with anything? As I said bringing up an unrelated subject is not a reason for deletion in another separate case. I will not respond further to this as I can see we are going in circles.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
            • You are repeating what I already said. I said that Athena and Tindall are not relevant here, because other stuff exists. On the other hand, it is a perfectly reasonable practice to cite examples when trying to counter someone's argument. When I said that she might or might not be considered royal, you mentioned her place in the line of succession, and I noted that being in the line of succession does not make one royal. Even if it did, few would agree that every royal person is notable. This is called a discussion. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Aside from the opinion that an article should not be created for a newborn person until that person has a name, with which I could agree, I see nothing convincing and several non-knowledgeable statements in the reasoning to delete, and I see a dogged argumentativeness on the part of one single user, over and over, who seems to want to dominate the subject. That too (agreeing with BabbaQ) would make me unusually hesitant to delete. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 22:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I wonder who might be the object of your new thinly veiled personal attacks! If I were going to make I guess, I would say it's the same guy you badmouth at other users' talk pages – but I am not the guessing kind. You are, in fact, so focused on this one editor that you failed to mention any argument for keeping the article. Which BabbaQ's argument do you agree with, exactly? All he or she said is that her name would be revealed soon. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • I rest my case. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 23:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
        • What case? Surtsicna ( talk) 23:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
          • Surtsicna, is it really worth picking a fight over this AfD? Serge said he rested his case, get over it. I will not look at this AfD again until it has been closed as it is obviously a heated topic for some. For some reason that is beyond me :)-- BabbaQ ( talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
            • I take it you refer to SergeWoodzing's usual personal attacks. Don't worry, I hardly care anymore. I know it irks him that I am not offended :) Surtsicna ( talk) 23:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Although I think there is an excess of royalcruft on Wikipedia, I am prepared to accept that grandchildren of monarchs are inherently notable, although I would object to going any further. PatGallacher ( talk) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • There is no precedent for having articles on grandchildren of royals, per (the king's sister) Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson. In Scandinavia, they are not regarded as notable and all other comparable ones live private lives. It is telling that none of Mrs. Magnuson's children have Wikipedia biographies. Vanasan ( talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • The children of Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson are not heirs to the throne and never have been. Princess Leonore is and has been since she was born. Bandy boy ( talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Grandchildren of royals typically have articles only if they are also royal themselves. The Princess Royal and Princess Caroline of Monaco's children are probably special cases, because there is enough international interest in them to warrant individual articles. Princess Christina's children are only great-grandsons of a monarch at any rate, and receive little media attention even in Sweden. They have no place in the line of succession and no royal titles or duties, afaik. I am of the opinion that being a royal is in itself notable in the general scheme of things, but the scope of that notability varies greatly depending on the country and the royal family itself. Morhange ( talk) 01:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as the Swedish RF's website has published information for a cabinet meeting scheduled for tomorrow indicating that Madeleine's daughter will receive a title Cabinet meeting, Wednesday 26 February 2014 Morhange ( talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Very interesting.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 22:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Indeed. Hopefully they will state her place in the line, so that we have a definitive source on the matter. Surtsicna ( talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Isn't actually mentioned here, though I'm tempted to boldly add it.-- Laun chba ller 16:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Princess Leonore now has a name and an official Swedish noble title. She's clearly part of the small group of the Swedish Royal House in line for the throne. Metheglyn ( talk) 16:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. She is a newborn child and not notable for any merits. Notability is not inherited, so her maternal grandfather being a king doesn't make her notable from birth as well (although it is entirely possible that she becomes notable in her own right later in life). She is also not a princess, as royal status is only inherited patrilineally in Scandinavia. Her father has no royal status or title and is only known as Christopher Paul O'Neill. She is comparable to the children of the king's sister Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson, all of whom are named Magnuson, none of whom are royal and none of whom have Wikipedia biographies. Vanasan ( talk) 22:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment Er, sorry? She is a princess, and if royal status is only inherited patrilineally in Scandinavia, how does her cousin Estelle have a title? Why are Margrethe II of Denmark's sons princes and not mere counts? Will Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway's future children not be royal despite their mother being future queen regnant? All three royal succession laws in Scandinavia operate on absolute primogeniture now, meaning the eldest child, regardless of gender inherits, and as we've already seen with Sweden, daughters, especially when the eldest children is a daughter and future monarch, can pass their royal status on to their children. Even in Belgium, Princess Astrid's children were all given extant royal titles to go with their Austrian ones. This is in no way comparable to the king's sisters, because they are not and never were in line for the throne. They never had succession rights. The law, limited to Carl Gustaf's descendants (and Prince Bertil) changed in 1980, and the way royal titles are inherited changed with it. Princess Christina never had a place in the line of succession and so her children are not royal and likely never will be. Princess Madeleine, on the other hand, has a royal title and style an dfull succession rights, and as of now, so does her daughter. Morhange ( talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment The Swedish constitution changed 1980, so that Princess Christina, Mrs. Magnuson and her children was left outside the line of succession. So, you cannot compare with them. And Scandinavia haven't had any royal family since the 16th century. But Sweden, Norway and Denmark have royal families. And the probability that Leonore will become queen of Sweden is smaller than that Sweden will become a republic. -- Lavallen ( talk) 13:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, she is in line to the succession to the throne and not that far from it. Bandy boy ( talk) 00:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable enough for inclusion.-- 81.225.107.105 ( talk) 09:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Now has a name and a title and is fifth in line to the throne. Of course she's notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Per WP:AFDEQ, I'll move it back/forth as part of the closing. ISTR the script gets confused otherwise, and manual tidying will be required. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Sorry. I'd carelessly assumed that the (original) article title was that used in the AfD. I now see that the AfD was also moved. If the logs etc. are updated then I suppose that's OK... however, in my experience, it's simpler to wait until the discussion is closed before moving anything. -- Trevj ( talk · contribs) 23:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Obviously there is no clear consensus as to whether the piles of news coverage about the legal disputes and Taylot's subsequent execution is enough to override WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 13:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Michael Taylor (prisoner)

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

Doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL and the article doesn't show how it's different from many other rape-and-murder cases. The article just suggests that Taylor's crime is legally punished by death in Missouri and basically there's nothing special about it. Brandmeister talk 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No apparent uniqueness or significant coverage. His execution is the (semi) notable thing, and that's WP:ONEEVENT. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

An executed giraffe warrants an article, but this guy can't have one!? Oh wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.102.116.97 ( talk) 03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Notable because of significant source material in reliable sources, and the fact that the Supreme Court considered an appeal in the case. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 03:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the article should be kept. Significant media coverage. I also believe (but am not 100% sure) his case was unique in that it involved a new drug combination for execution; and, also, the state selected an anonymous compounding pharmacy. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Per the Huffington Post source there, "The same drug was used in three previous Missouri executions, and state officials said none of the inmates showed outward signs of distress." First time the drug has come from this company, but nothing indicating it went any differently. Executions have long been steeped in anonymity. Hoods for both sides, firing squads with blanks, three people starting one drip. Something about people just doesn't want to admit to killing people. A little more secrecy is nothing major, if the results are the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I didn't follow this case all that closely. I thought I read something about it being a "secret" pharmacy that made the drug; this was followed by claims that such secrecy violates governmental transparency. And, I thought this caused a big stink in this case, for some reason (different than prior executions). Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Borderline Keep There seem to be a few significant points about the case and the execution that make it noteworthy. Deb ( talk) 12:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • keep I think this execution is the source of some controversy and will likely be discussed for quite a while, especially in MO. V. Joe ( talk) 13:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete garden variety nn execution WP:ONEEVENT. -- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 22:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:CRIMINAL since the perpetrator is not a renowned national or international figure and the crime is not a well-documented historic event. Hekerui ( talk) 11:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Matt Roark

Matt Roark (  | 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 meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in the NFL. Colorado Ice is not an AFL team. No other establishment of notability. X96lee15 ( talk) 14:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 ( talk) 14:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 ( talk) 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:GNG at this time and cannot find any other measure that the subject would pass.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 15:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Granatkin Memorial. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Granatkin Memorial

2014 Granatkin Memorial (  | 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 youth tournament with very little reliable sources and no prose, WP:NOTSTATS applies here. Winner of individual tournaments should be noted on Granatkin Memorial parent article. Separate pages are not required. JMHamo ( talk) 14:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

2011 Granatkin Memorial (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 14:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. Tournament itself seems notable enough, particularly as created by FIFA president, but not sure there is really significant, reliable coverage on individual seasons beyond WP:ROUTINE and stats. Fenix down ( talk) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. This is a youth association football tournament which traditionally features invited national teams composed of U-17/U-18/U-19 players. Please see: rsssf.com --► Cekli 829 07:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment - RSSSF is just a stats website. Where are the reliable sources providing significant discussion to enable to production of sourced prose? Fenix down ( talk) 11:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The RSSSF (Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation) is an international amateur organization dedicated to collecting statistics about association football. The foundation aims to build an exhaustive archive of football-related information from around the world. In addition, this tournament is very famous. There are also products on the tournament philatelic:
File:Covers of the SU - Valentin A. Granatkin Memorial International Youth Football Tournament 1986.jpg
File:Covers of the SU - Valentin A. Granatkin Memorial International Youth Football Tournament 1987.jpg
File:Covers of the SU - Valentin A. Granatkin Memorial International Youth Football Tournament 1988.jpg
File:Covers of the SU - Valentin A. Granatkin Memorial International Youth Football Tournament 1989.jpg
I would ask you to consider. --► Cekli 829 18:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
How do stamps issued for the 1986-89 editions of the tournament support notability for the 2014 and 2011 editions. You seem to be arguing that the tournament is notable. Again I say, no one is debating that here, what is being challenged is the extent to which the two seasons noted above are notable enough for individual articles. Fenix down ( talk) 09:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Famous annual international youth tournament. One of the top-competitions for youth teams in Eastern Europe. There is enough press coverage. NickSt ( talk) 12:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Where? Please show significant reliable coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE match reporting / stat dumps. Nobody is discussing the notability of the tournament itself, merely that there is no need for individual season articles on an invite only friendly tournament for youth players unless significant reliable coverage that can be used to generate sourced prose sufficient to pass GNG can be found. Fenix down ( talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Granatkin Memorial - while the tournament in itself would be notable, I don't see the need for having individual articles for each staging when it is about a tournament that has received limited coverage. Mentoz ( talk) 12:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Granatkin Memorial squads

2014 Granatkin Memorial squads (  | 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. A list of non-notable players for a non-notable youth tournament as is evident from the numerous redlinks - WP:NOTSTATSBOOK applies here. JMHamo ( talk) 13:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.

2011 Granatkin Memorial squads (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 13:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- per WP:NOTSTATS, plus there is already WP:FOOTY consensus that we do not need navboxes for non-senior team tournament squads, so not sure why we would need stat dump articles. Fenix down ( talk) 14:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - these lists of non-notable people does nothing to further the encyclopedia. Giant Snowman 18:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. Famous annual international youth tournament. One of the top-competitions for youth teams in Eastern Europe. There is enough press coverage. NickSt ( talk) 12:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
So why does the fact that a tournament is notable mean we need a separate article containing no sourced prose that simply lists the squads, especially when the age of many of them means they are all redlinked? What is independantly notable about the squads themselves? The notability of the tournament is irrelevant to this discussion. Fenix down ( talk) 13:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Some people argue we shouldn't have squad-articles for friendly-tournaments, others argue we shouldn't have squad-articles for youth-tournaments. And this is a squad-article for a youth-friendly tournament. Unneccessary content-fork, fails WP:NOTSTATS. Mentoz ( talk) 12:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Abra (rapper)#Discography. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Abra (album)

Abra (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 album, currently written mostly from a fan's POV that I couldn't find reliable sources for. Creator refused to keep it as a redirect to Abra (rapper). Smtchahal ( talk) 13:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete: All the refs are either iTunes or Facebook and doesn't seem to be very WP:NOTABLE. Since it was just released, there might be more sources soon, but let's just delete this. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Abra (rapper) or to his discography page/section (if it exists) - At the moment, the album hasn't received much reliable coverage, and I'm afraid it might never satisfy WP:NALBUMS as the Philippines does not have an official music chart. However, in this particular case, a redirect is still a better option compared to deletion, as it's still a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 09:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ruinz Ason

AfDs for this article:
Ruinz Ason (  | 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. Airplay falls short of rotation. Releases not on an important label. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Has a lot of sources but none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about Ason. Reposting a video on a website is not independent coverage. The bio hosted on BBC is a Wikipedia mirror. SBTV and rightchordmusic do not have significant coverage. The best is probably freshonthenet but it's a blog and is only a paragraph. Laft afd closed prematurely as no concensus with minimal participation. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I checked each reference supplied and they are web ephemera without any substance. It is a promotional article. Szzuk ( talk) 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Add. The page was deleted in 2010 and there have been in total 5 delete votes and no keep votes in the 3 AFDs to date. Szzuk ( talk) 21:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ounavarra Foundation

Ounavarra Foundation (  | 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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to Organisation websites, pieces by cofounder Wyser-Pratte, gossip columns, primary pieces and PR. None of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide ant depth of coverage about Ounavarra Foundation. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete promotional article for minor foundation that has not done any significant, and thereefore has no suitable sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SmartSE ( talk) 23:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Joelle Wyser-Pratte

Joelle Wyser-Pratte (  | 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. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to Organisation websites, pieces by Wyser-Pratte, gossip columns, primary pieces and PR. None of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide ant depth of coverage about Wyser-Pratte. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Matilda Media

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

This is an advert for Matilda Media built by a bunch of one of multiple SPAs that are pushing Matilda and associated companies and people. It mostly sourced to promo material and routine announcements, falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightstrade and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightsCloud for related spam. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not appear top have yet done anything notable, except get itself associated with a large number of non-notable companies and people. I would consider this qualifies for G11, except it would be helpful to have a decision here to permit quick removal of what I suspect will be later attempts to insert the same article. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because this is an un-notable group of companies trying to hitch a ride on Wikipedia's star. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki ( talk) 12:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete We cannot list every start-up venture here, there is nothing notable about a couple of people who have bought the film rights to a couple of books and claim to have started a museum (a national digital museum which has no on line presence). When someone outside the company decides they are worth mention they can re-create the article without copy/pasting it from a company prospectus. Djapa Owen ( talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

RightsCloud

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

This is an advert for RightsCloud built by a bunch of one of multiple SPAs that are pushing Matilda Media and associated companies and people. It mostly sourced to promo material and routine announcements, falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rightstrade for near identical spam. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As with the companion article, not notable -- at least, not notable yet. An attempt to use WP u in the hope of gaining some visibility. I suggest it is liable to speedy as both G11 and A7. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because this appears to be part of an organized attempt to hitch a ride on the rising start of Wikipedia. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki ( talk) 12:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Sociallyacceptable ( talk) 05:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Rightstrade

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

This is an advert for Rightstrade built by a bunch of one of multiple SPAs that are pushing Matilda Media and associated companies and people. It mostly sourced to promo material and routine announcements, falling short of WP:CORPDEPTH. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RightsCloud for near identical spam. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Promotional article for firm that is not yet notable--as the article itself makes clear. I notice the links inserted in the article to some unrelated but actually notable organizations in the same field, in the attempt to imply notability by the presence of blue links. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete because this appears to be part of an organized attempt to hitch a ride on the rising start of Wikipedia. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki ( talk) 12:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Peter Scarf

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

This is primarily an advert for Matilda Media built by a bunch of SPAs pushing Matilda and accosiated companies and people. As an entrepreneur he lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. As an actor Scarf has had one significant role, Liam Tanner on Home and Away. His Underbelly part did go for many episodes but it was not a major character. His film roles are not significant. His other roles are single episode parts. As a writer /director his one work is not notable. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Purely promotional article for non-notable performer. The best way of realizing the lack of notability is to follow the links to the shows he has been in, and checking the extreme unimportance of most or all of the parts he has played. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Bulletproof (Rage Against the Machine album)

Bulletproof (Rage Against the Machine 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)

Not notable. Just another random unofficial third praty bootleg. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Merge reading the argument to merge i think that merging this article would be the best idea.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Merge what? That some people who had nothing to do with the band recorded them at a concert and printed up some unortharised cds. Lets flood everyones discography with crappy cds that any backyard bozo decides to burn? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Where is said argument? The talk page is empty. Wickedjacob ( talk) 21:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non notable live album. Koala15 ( talk) 01:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - bootleg album with no significant coverage written on it that I could find; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong  show 01:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Phaphra

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

Fails WP:GNG. It is a type of grain and may possibly be a place but there are no sources for this as a tribe other than mirrors and the hopelessly unreliable H. A. Rose, an amateur ethnologist of the British Raj era. WALTHAM2 ( talk · contribs) removed the PROD, which led to this discussion. WALTHAM2 has now indicated that they have withdrawn from the project. Sitush ( talk) 11:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Who made this determination about H. A. Rose being an "amateur ethnologist"? How can such a determination be made about any body? Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There is a widespread consensus that we do not use the pseudo-ethnologists of the British Raj era, of which Rose is an example. They were scientific racists, had no training in the subject matter, took as gospel that which they were told (ignoring issues such as sanskritisation), relied far too heavily on the biassed accounts of Brahmins, and so on. Their writings often contain internal contradictions because of their taking things as gospel during their travels, and they are rarely if ever cited nowadays in a context that supports their reliability. To understand them, one has to appreciate why the Raj supported such people, which lies in a perceived need to control the populace following the 1857 mutiny: their efforts followed a bureaucratic agenda designed to bolster empire, not study for study's sake. - Sitush ( talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Added ref which is not based on H. A. Rose's findings, multiple sources about same subject cannot be wrong, review and let me know if it is good enough to keep this article. Moreover, i don't think a Raj historian would have any benefit by mentioning a two-liner of Phaphra tribe. To reject a source as a lie or untrue, you would have to find the objective behind it. Why would a historian lie about a tribe's existence such as Phaphra, no matter who he might be? Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The source you added is a book written by H A Rose, nothing different here. -- SMS Talk 20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Well, it says the book is written by Maclagan Ibbetson Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
See the book's front cover. -- SMS Talk 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I reverted your edit because you have obviously not evaluated the source, which is indeed Rose, nor evaluated my explanation to your original !vote. I've also struck your second !vote - you get one bite at the cherry and it confuses people if it looks otherwise. - Sitush ( talk) 20:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, fails gng. Can't see anything on google books other than as discussed above. DeCausa ( talk) 21:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Question Just a question though, please do not take it the way my opinion was taken the last time. Is there a Wikipedia policy stating that British Raj authors are unreliable and mentions the names of authors who are considered unreliable or any Wikipedian can make that determination that this, this and this author's work is unreliable and do not consider his/her work as a reliable source. For example, is there any policy which mentions H. A. Rose is a british raj author or a policy mentioning his name as an unreliable source. If not then who makes the determination, who is unreliable and who is reliable? Although i am not a big fan of british raj authors and i personally hate them myself but Wikipedia is not about personal hatred or about personal opinion towards any body. My attempt was only to save a piece of information from being deleted and it was not a personal attack on any body, i hope it clears every thing and i hope i get a proper and professional answer to my questions. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 22:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
There is no policy that declares a source as unreliable explicitly, rather there is a guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources using which editors analyze a source. If some editors find themselves having conflicting opinion about a source there is a noticeboard ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard) where they can seek community's input. -- SMS Talk 22:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
WP:RSN has rejected some of them in the past, and common sense + a bit of background knowledge indicates that rejection applies to just about all of the "ethnographers" (read H. H. Risley, for example - colour charts and nose sizes, indeed). They have also been rejected across numerous article talk pages, which have included input from RSN regulars who are not regular editors of the subject area, eg: Itsmejudith ( talk · contribs). Perhaps unsurprisingly, when such sources are not favourable to a particular caste/tribe/clan, members of the specific communities also reject them ... but they like them when the sources are favourable. - Sitush ( talk) 01:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I was notified that my name was mentioned. Generally, not just in relation to India, we should treat any history written before 1945 with great care, because it may contain unjustified assertions about ethnicity. The exception is when a text is still considered to be the standard work. Itsmejudith ( talk) 08:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note I have done some additional research on this topic after my last note and I have found a significant number of villages containing word Phaphra in their name mainly in Pind Dadan Khan Tehsil of Jhelum District and i am sure they are not named after a grain, they must have been after the name of the tribe living in those villages and we have also have a reference to that fact, although it might not be reliable to some but still we should consider that since there is no policy mentioning that he is unreliable. At this point it is only people's opinion vs. people's opinion. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Sajjad, to say that a village's name is Phaphra so there must be people living in that village belonging to a tribe with the same name is Original research and is not allowed at Wikipedia. -- SMS Talk 00:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note I was talking from a point of view of not accepting the notion of H. A. Rose being unreliable plus considering the common sense of village names not being on a grain. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 04:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note Additional ref have been added, this should be a speedy keep now. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 23:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as explained in the nomination statement, a non notable tribe that hardly finds a mention in a reliable source. The subject finds just a passing mention in the two (similar/same) sources in the article, while the source itself seems to be commentary done by Justice Shadi Lal, that proves nothing more than its existence. And Existence is not equal to Notability. -- SMS Talk 03:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note There is a source from Sir Shadi Lal and there is H. A. Rose as well, where no where in Wikipedia's policies, it says that both of these sources are unreliable. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Actually I would have (in fact it has already been cited to you) but its useless to cite a policy/guideline to you as you already said they are flawed and you can twist them in any and every way. -- SMS Talk 12:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I did not say that i can twist them, i said or i meant to say that they are being twisted by experienced editors to cite them however they want and to use them however they want. You can still cite me a policy and i will accept it if it mentions these two names anywhere that they are unreliable or it says that British Raj authors are unreliable and it defines who British Raj authors are and these two people come under that definition but if you are just going to cite a general guideline then i am sorry to say it can be interpreted in many ways and people are using those loop holes in policies to achieve whatever they want here. It's like a dictatorship here without a constitution and dictators are saying that constitution is what i say and interpret. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 13:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The policy is WP:CONSENSUS with regard to WP:RS. In addition, WP:GNG is not met since the sources do not discuss the subject matter: I've told you on several occasions that mere presence in a list is not an indicator of notability. - Sitush ( talk) 13:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Alright, here is what i have to say, since i worked on this and spent time on this, let me add H. A Rose back and any other sources that i have in sight and then after that we leave it to closing admin to decide whether he/she consider the article worth keeping or not. If it gets deleted, the whole article goes and if the decision is made to keep it, the article and all the sources including H. A. Rose stay but in order for closing admin to fairly decide this matter, all the sources available need to go in. I will only make one comment after this comment that all the sources i could find are in and we will leave to closing admin thereafter. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 13:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • We do not use unreliable sources. The closing admin is supposed to evaluate the consensus of this discussion, not make some unilateral decision based on the content of the article. - Sitush ( talk) 14:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Note There is another source added to the article, closing admin should consider that when making a decision. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 16:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Sigh. It is practically the same source as previously: Raj, court-based, basically a list etc. - Sitush ( talk) 16:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • No, it's not, they are three different people, four different book, they cannot be all wrong. Sajjad Altaf ( talk) 20:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Delete No reliable sources to support WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Friendship Trophy

Friendship Trophy (  | 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 "trophy", which generally only receives any mentions at all from local sources. The one exception is [15], which is routine, and most definitely not significant coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete / Maybe merge - per nom, appears to have very little coverage whatsoever, but seems so random that it might be worth a mention in the two club articles? Fenix down ( talk) 11:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment - but that's precisely the point, these are only "mentions", where is the significant coverage required by GNG? All the sources you have presented seem to fall under the "passing mention" banner specifically negated by GNG. I can't find anything anywhere that spends any significant time actually discussing this "trophy" as the main focus of an article. Fenix down ( talk) 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The Daily Mail's coverage is also completely meaningless, and is WSC a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I may have done for this article by asking on WP Football if anyone can confirm whether it's contested twice a year when the sides are in the same division (as Wikipedia implied), or whether the aggregate score over the two games decides the Trophy (as an article in the Guardian today by Jonathan Wilson claimed). The links dug up by the Rambling Man seem to confirm it's a two-legged tie. So if I've killed the article by drawing attention to it, at least I've got my answer. Thanks! -- 93.152.14.46 ( talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Well, if an English football "tournament"-type thing isn't updated regularly, and it involves top-division sides, that's generally a sign that notability is marginal at best. (And yes, it was that post which led to this AfD, but I hope that doesn't discourage you in future!) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Careful, being {{ out of date}} is not a reason to attribute lack of notability. We can easily add a bunch of recent results to make sure it becomes notable if that's your position. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I take it as a sign that something may not be notable if it isn't updated regularly in a WikiProject as active as this one, but obviously not as anything concrete. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Bad call. Many articles are out of date here, doesn't mean they're not notable. Not saying this AFD won't succeed, no doubt you'll see this pesky minor article deleted (good riddance to the budgie article, and feel good about removing some information from the encyclopaedia), but it's never a sign of non-notability, just because it hasn't been updated. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There's plenty of sources, yes - but where is the significant coverage in non-local sources? A few hundred mentions does not generate notability. At most, a one-sentence mention of it on each club's page is valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - this looks to be an unofficial tradition observed by fans, and not an official trophy which the clubs themselves organise. Nearly all clubs will have something similar - for example Bradford City's minute of applause in the 56th minute of each match. A few passing mentions does not make it notable, and nobody has demonstrated the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Just a small query, can you give me examples of "official traditions" please, with reliable sources stating that they are "official"? Do you think that (in rugby) England and Scotland organise the Calcutta Cup themselves, or do they simply just play against one another for it every encounter, the winner gaining the "Calcutta Cup"? A minute's applause (becoming commonplace everywhere these days) is a completely bogus analogy to a contest against a particular opponent, as well you know. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The difference is that the "Calcutta Cup" is both an international match, and it gets a lot of in-depth, non-routine coverage. Neither of those apply to this trophy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • No, you miss the point entirely. The oppose here included that it was an "unofficial tradition" and "not an official trophy". So I was just asking what makes a tradition "official" or "unofficial" and a trophy "official" or "unofficial", as this will be instructive in future AFDs for the football project. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per The Rambling Man. I was by far the most active NCFC fan on Wikipedia ( example - note TRM is very much not a Canary!) but I stopped proper content editing in April 2013 and pretty much stopped editing altogether a few months later, so I'm sorry if the article is out of date. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Some additional sources (sorry if any of these replicate stuff above or already in the article - I'm short of time):

I think my copy of Canary Citizens is too early an edition to include any mention, but I'll see if I can rustle something up from someone with a newer copy. Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) 11:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Daily Mail isn't reliable, so that one can be ignored immediately. Northern Echo is a local source. The Telegraph bit is routine filler during the lulls in the match, so means nothing. The Talksport ref is not in-depth coverage. Sunderland: A Club Transformed is reasonable, but doesn't show any notability independent of the two clubs involved. The Guardian ref is reasonable, but it's the result of a "phone-in" type thing, so doesn't generate any notability. When Saturday Comes does not provide any in-depth coverage at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The Daily Mail isn't a reliable source?
What's wrong with local sources?
Please ground your objection to the Telegraph in policy or guideline, rather than personal preference
"doesn't show any notability independent of the two clubs involved" please explain how this is an objection to the GNG based on policy or guidance
The Guardian write-up is a sports journalist's piece in an RS, not some fans' blog.
Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 12:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
To provide a bit more detail on why none of the sources above contribute to GNG:
  • Daily Telegraphis a minute by minute report of a game, not an article on the Friendship Trophy itself, all premier league games get this sort of WP:ROUTINE coverage.
  • Talksport essentially observes how non-notable the trophy is as it is an article on useless awards.
  • Book about Sunderland is significant coverage, but more is needed.
  • Guardian is a regular Q&A column about all sorts of questions, this is not an article on the Friendship Trophy and it is not discussed in any significant length.
  • When Saturday Comes is an article about Sunderland the football club, the Friendship Trophy is mentioned only briefly.
  • Northern Echo is another match report which only very, very briefly mentions the existence of the trophy and does not discuss it in any depth whatsoever.
  • Daily Mail Is another match report that only tangentially mentions the Trophy. It also refers to it as the "Friendly Cup", not the Friendship Trophy, suggesting that it is not even notable enough for journalists to agree on a proper name for it.
Not a single one of these sources discusses the trophy in anywhere near the level of depth required by GNG, they consist almost entirely of brief, passing mentions. Please provide sources which discuss the history of the cup, the nature of the trophy itself or documents how the friendly relationship arose. Fenix down ( talk) 12:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Dweller, I'm shocked that you don't realize/know just how unreliable the Daily Mail is. It's a tabloid newspaper, and one of the worst of its type as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
In this context though Luke, I think it highly unlikely the Mail would bother writing lies about the Friendship Trophy! It's more relevant that the Mail article isn't actually an article on the trophy, nor does it discuss it at significant length. Fenix down ( talk) 12:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Writers for the Daily Mail would lie about their own mothers for a quick buck, so I wouldn't be surprised. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this topic passes GNG as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. * Lukeno94 - would you please direct to the relevant page that says local sources should be disregarded when deciding whether a topic meets GNG? Mentoz ( talk) 12:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Local sources are disregarded in every AfD debate for showing notability. And they always have been. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • And, equally, it hasn't received anything like "significant coverage" - it receives routine coverage at best, and very little else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
@ Mentoz86:, could you please indicate where in the sources "significant coverage" has been achieved. Fenix down ( talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
I'll answer for him. WP:GNG says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A good number of the sources presented explain what the Friendship Trophy is. They're not just passing mentions. -- Dweller ( talk) 17:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Two of us have analysed the sources in detail. They're not significant coverage, and they're definitely not all non-routine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • And I think it's abundantly clear that you want the article deleted, so there's really no need to continually bang the drum. Time to let the assessing admin decide. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) NorthAmerica 1000 03:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Nelly Karim

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

WP:A7 declined. Does not appear notable per WP:NACTOR. While Karim has a significant role in 678, nothing else seems significant (or notable in its own right). In checking for other indicators of notability, "Nelly Karim" -wikipedia reveals 203 ghits, while "نيللي كريم‎" -wikipedia reveals only 193 ghits. This is a fair indicator of non-notability. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 15:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

*Delete The requirements are two leading roles in notable films, in only one of the two notable films she has been in can she be said to have had a leading role. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Well... technically the roles don't have to be major roles. The roles just have to have gained her coverage in reliable sources. A person can have a career that is entirely non-major roles, yet as long as they have received coverage for their work they would pass notability guidelines. I'm running into a language barrier, but I'm finding enough to suggest that Karim would pass notability guidelines. She's won a few awards and she's mentioned in a book about Shakespeare in modern cinema in relation to a film she was in. She's also mentioned here as someone with a particularly large fan following in Egypt. I've asked for help from the Egypt WP, as I'm fairly sure that there will be more coverage in another language. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's bound to be more coverage in other languages such as Arabic, but I think I found enough to show that she's rather well thought of in Egypt and in the Arabic speaking world as a whole. My search was limited by the language barrier, but I did find quite a few hits when I put her Arabic name in Google News Search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • This is all pretty minor and nonspecific. The fact is she's had one major role in a possibly notable film. If there's a language barrier the onus is on those calling for keep to surpass it and add the information to the article. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 16:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I do think that notability is proven with the sourcing I did find, but I'm just saying that since most of the coverage is in Arabic that there will be far more coverage that needs to be added to the article that I couldn't find. The thing is, she's won multiple awards for different roles other than 678. One was a group award but the one with CIFF was for best actress. I think that this all shows her notability fairly clearly per WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Pretty famous actress who did many primary characters in shows and movies. She is presented in news articles often and is very notable in the arab world. You can see many news articles in arabic about her here. You can find more news articles covering her through ahram online, which is a major news paper in the middle east, alarabyia.net, Egypt Independent .-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 19:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • WP:SOFIXIT, if you can. Put her Arabic name in quotes, there are exactly 105 news ghits. So what? That isn't notability. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 04:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • I'm getting over 1,000 hits on Google News and that's just with the recent news. Of course the amount of hits on any given news search doesn't really mean that someone's notable... but neither does it mean that someone isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Plus I do have to add that WP:NACTOR is not limited to film only. It covers television as well and it all boils down to whether or not the actor or actress in question has received coverage for their roles. Karim has- most of the coverage now is about her latest television role, but what I can see with Google Translate I can see where she easily passes notability guidelines. Here are some links, although I will give the disclaimer that I only saw a portion of the book in the preview (which was translated by GT). ( [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Not to mention that the biggest newspaper in Egypt did a rather long piece on her earlier this year. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have been convinced that enough has been found to show that she is notable. However I hope people keep improving this article, because it is still too much just a listing without substance. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The Goose Egg Game (card game)

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

Doesn't appear notable Jackmcbarn ( talk) 17:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, and at best, is a premature article. Probably some sort of WP:NOTAD, considering the game has a Kickstarter project up. Only independent source is a short blurb in a local newspaper from a few weeks ago. mikeman67 ( talk) 01:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf ( talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Action On Film International Film Festival

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

fails WP:GNG. could find no indepth coverage of this festival. just one line mentions confirming it exists. currently based in imdb for sourcing. LibStar ( talk) 01:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Viljar Veebel

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

More or less unsourced vanity BLP, with only one or two authors (possibly the subject himself). Fails to meet WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines. Sander Säde 07:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Horrible non-encyclopedic CV-like article. NOTLINKEDIN, precisely! -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No indication this person comes anywhere being notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Kalpana Patowary Bhojpuri Albums

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

No sources indicating that a standalone article of her albums is notable. If any of the albums are notable, they belong in her article Kalpana Patowary. The article is also promotional having been created by User:Kalpana Patowary Bhojpuri Albums. I am One of Many ( talk) 05:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 12:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Kasper Skaanes

Kasper Skaanes (  | 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:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, the claim that he played 4 matches in the Tippeligaen is untrue according to - Soccerway JMHamo ( talk) 03:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Nomination withdrawn - per Fenix down's comment below. Note to self: The Eliteserien is the same as Tippeligaen. JMHamo ( talk) 12:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The club site indicates he has made five appearances in the last two seasons in the Tippeligaen, which is an FPL, so he passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs expanding rather than deleting. @ JMHamo: perhaps this should be withdrawn? Fenix down ( talk) 12:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Ibrahima Dramé

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

Has not played first-team football, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo ( talk) 03:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 03:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:IGNOREALLRULES. This article is created by a new editor along with two other biographies related to the same club, and two days after creation they are all proposed for deletion. These three players will all be notable when the Norwegian football season starts in a month - but the new editor will probably have quitted editing by then if s/he sees their articles being deleted. Deleting this article now (and recreating them in a month) will not improve Wikipedia, but having another editor who edits articles about Norwegian football certainly will. Mentoz ( talk) 21:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ GiantSnowman: - It might be that I presume future notability, but aren't you guys doing the opposite - presuming that he wont play any matches at all? You don't need a crystal ball to say that a player that plays regularly in a club's pre-seasons friendlies will play when the real season starts. The indication that this player (and his teammates created by the same user) soon will be notable is here, the list of Brann's competetive matches. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I don't get why we are taking this bureaucratic approach to new articles: Nominate for deletion days after creation, and recreate when they play a match (and we all know that playing one match is not enough to merit a stand-alone article unless the general notability guideline is met). Not exactly a happy welcome for Mentoz ( talk) 16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Agree with GS, although when viewed in isolation a decision to delete when there is a possibility of recreation in a few weeks seems a little pointless however, you must look at things in the wider picture. By rigourously employing WP:CRYSTAL we are able to head off any and all arguments which essentially run along the lines of "this player is not notable now by any guideline, but let's keep the article for a while to see if he continues to be non-notable", an argument that fundamentally makes no sense. Fenix down ( talk) 08:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
I see your point, but that's not what I want - I just want us to not bite the newcomers. If we look at the wider picture (the other wider picture): Wikipedia is in decline, and we should welcome new editors warmly instead of deleting their work when their work meets the cut-off for inclusion in Wikipedia in just a few weeks. There is a big difference here, if one of the participants in this discussion had created this article I would've trouted you and voted to delete the article. But Wikipedia needs new contributors, and us veteran editors shouldn't scare them off just because they haven't read WP:NFOOTY or WP:FPL and has created an article a couple of weeks early. After seeing dozens of articles being deleted and then recreated I believe we should stop deleting new articles where there is a decent chance they might become notable within the next month. It doesn't harm Wikipedia to keep an article about a non-notable footballers a couple of weeks, but I have a feeling we could harm future contributions to Wikipedia if we delete it if the new contributors quit editing Wikipedia. Mentoz ( talk) 16:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Okay what am I missing here. Plays and has started for SK_Brann, a fully-professional team in a fully professional league listed at WP:FPL, as I noted when I removed the PROD. Clearly one of my assumptions is wrong with four people calling for deletion ... so what am I missing? Nfitz ( talk) 18:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    Has not played for Brann, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • He has ... I assume your point is that they don't count, being only pre-season friendlies.
  • Keep - per Mentoz86. Very wise comments. And little point deleting the page just before the season begins, given he's been playing extensively in pre-season friendlies. Nfitz ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Playing in pre-season friendlies does not mean you will be playing in the regular season. Many friendlies against lower ranking teams involve cubs putting out lesser players. Fenix down ( talk) 08:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Wikipedia does not operate on the process of "this player will be notable when the season starts". As we've said hundreds of times now, that claim is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. We don't know if they will be notable in the future. What if they suffer a long term injury during pre-season? – Michael ( talk) 01:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • As has been noted previously, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't require a guarantee that the player will play. Only that it's almost certain that the player will play. An long term injury that makes them never play is unlikely. And if such a thing actually happens, and they do retire (such as the sad case of Zachary Herold) then the article can simply be PRODed or deleted. We spend an inordinate amount of time near the beginning of the season deleting players who are almost certain to have articles recreated later. I've been looking at the ones we looked at in 2012. Every player I found I argued against deleting because they played on a fully professional team, but hadn't started has been recreated. And most have been done so without merging in the previous edit history. We're wasting our time deleting these articles. Nfitz ( talk) 04:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." So yeah it pretty much requires a guarantee that a player will play. Also, wasting time deleting articles is not a valid argument. If they don't meet the notability guidelines, they're gonna be nominated for deletion. I understand your argument about pages being created despite the season not starting. WP:GNG is complicated. And this might go down as WP:NPOV, but almost every page I've seen fail WP:NFOOTBALL have been deleted. And looking for significant coverage for players that don't/didn't meet NFOOTBALL is not that simple. I mean, I've wanted an article for Patrick Mullins created since he won the first of his two Hermann Trophy awards in 2012. You understand where I'm going here? – Michael ( talk) 19:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Still, take a look at the players signed for a fully-pro league we were arguing about in 2012 (or earlier). They all got deleted, and most have since been recreated. Many (if not most) without properly restoring the pre-deletion(s) edit history, even years later. Why do we do this to ourselves? I'm not sure what the reference is about Patrick Mullins (soccer) - we've previously established in other AfD dicussions that Hermann Trophy winners were notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Brian White. You don't win the Hermann trophy once without significant media coverage (let alone twice!) Nfitz ( talk) 21:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is no garantee the player ever will play a match in a fully professional league. Grrahnbahr ( talk) 00:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy incubate to draftspace  Everyone seems to agree that the essential criteria may or may not happen in four weeks.  Since the criteria may not happen, the article should not be in mainspace.  Since the criteria may happen, there is no benefit to having the article locked up in deletespace.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 19:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Albert Taar

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 03:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 03:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 06:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league or senior international football. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant, reliable coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 12:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - the only Polish-language coverage I can find on Taar relates to his trial and signing with Wisła Płock (e.g., Gazeta.pl or SportoweFakty.pl). It appears to be routine, with a few sentences about his trial and his previous play in Estonia and the Estonian youth national teams. I don't think this article can pass the GNG. Jogurney ( talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker talk 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Selected Hilarity

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

As a group, fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 03:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. References provided discuss individual members or only briefly mention group, not providing independent significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Disagree with proposed deletion. Group member Bryan Tucker is the current co-head writer for Saturday Night Live and references the group in nearly every printed interview. The St. Martin's Griffin 2012 publishing "Duke Sucks" references the group. They are notable and still relevant. ( talk) 05:37, 26 February 2014
But he is not a third party. does anyone talking about Tucker talk about the influence of the group on Tucker's work? it's third party notice of the subject that makes them eligible for a stand alone article -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the references are either niche publications, or about specific group members, not the group itself. "Bryan Tucker is notable and he mentions the group every time he's interviewed" is just a special case of WP:INHERIT. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences

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

Promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy ( talk) 03:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Even though the article has some sources it seems to me that this article is made to promote rather than inform.-- Jeffrd10 ( talk) 13:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  I looked at [21] and [22].  Both are about the 2013 Market Research and the Mobile World (MRMW) conference.  Both are in-depth (and IMO interesting) in the ideas coming out of the conference, but there is no analysis of the conference as a business, such as profit margin for the promoter.  The number one problem for the article here is that there is no such thing as "Merlien Institute Market Research Conferences", meaning that this is a WP:SYNTHESIS.  This is a case in point as to why we should enforce with software a requirement to have a reference for the title of the article.  There are four separate topics in this article:
  1. Merlien Institute
  2. HeraldBoy Research and Technological News, an online newsmagazine
  3. MRMW, conference and tradeshow
  4. Qualitative 360 (I haven't looked at the references enough to say what this is)
I looked at the "About Us" for the online newsmagazine, and while they solicit material there is no assurance to readers that they are exercising editorial control on the content, so this may or may not be a WP:RS.  It has only been managed by Merlien Institute since early 2013.  I also looked at the "Contributors" page, which mentions the concept "peer review" without stating the extent to which peer review is used.  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  I looked for secondary coverage of the newsmagazine.  I found two articles on Google news dated February, so perhaps Google news is starting to carry them.  I looked at Google web for the top thirty snippets for ["HeraldBoy" Merlien] and saw nothing secondary and independent.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  In a web search on [Merlien], I found [23], which probably counts as a WP:RS blog.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete  Fails WP:SYNTH, WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:Deletion policy.  Maybe I'm not locating the right secondary independent WP:RS sources; but if so, Merlien could help Wikipedia editors by providing a list of such sources on a tab on their website.  It would also help if these sources provided evidence that these topics are having a long-term effect on the world.  Meanwhile, there are WP:Alternative outlets.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Doublju

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

Promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy ( talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. I could find no significant coverage of Doublju or its brick-and-mortar store JTomson, and the article provides none (granted that I cannot evaluate the Chinese sources). -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Steven Richard Gatena

AfDs for this article:
Steven Richard Gatena (  | 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 individual. This article has been deleted via CSD a number of times in the past, the only difference with this copy is his inclusion in Forbes. Unfortunately the Forbes article is only a brief discussion of the article subject. Article appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 02:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete there may be notability there, but it's hard to tell because of all the promotion. This is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service. I'd put this down as violating WP:ADV or WP:COI or WP:NPV or I'd even allow "ignore the rules" and get rid of this. If someone would re-write it like an actual encyclopedic entry then I'd reconsider it, but for now there are so many things wrong with it that it would be better for Wikipedia to delete it. I'd support the Speedy also, as it has been tagged for that.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 12:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    And I have removed the speedy tag. Due to the Forbes reference, that is possibly a significant new development since the last discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (3rd nomination) result was delete for failure to meet WP:BIO. That failure is not so clear now, therefore G4 does not apply anymore. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    I'm good either way.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    Also, if the article is not written properly, that doesn't mean it should be deleted... that means it should be adjusted accordingly. 99Legend ( talk) 19:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — 99Legend ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    WP:SOFIXIT. There are still a few days remaining. If the article now addresses all concerns, then ask the nominator to consider withdrawing the nomination. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    How do I do this? 99Legend ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    If I were enthusiastic about this particular subject, I would--but I'm not. Looking at some of the older AFDs on this, it looks like I was on the other side. I guess I've changed my position.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Still not notable as either an athlete or a businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep So how do all of the new sources... including Forbes... not qualify this article as legitimate? There is a large variety of sources from many different kinds of outlets over a decade.-- 99Legend ( talk) 19:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — 99Legend ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    Comment - The "references" are all trivial in nature. reddogsix ( talk) 23:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Syndicated Radio, Forbes, Published Book, Local & National Newspapers, Blogs, University Publications... What would be considered not "trivial" in nature. From what I see the guidelines are being met. If they are not being met, how can they be improved upon? I'm not really getting a lot of feedback on how to actually improve the article, just that people seem to not like it very much. Last time it was discussed there weren't enough sources, or the sources weren't big enough, or the article seemed to not based on facts. All of those issues have been corrected. What else can be done here? 99Legend ( talk) 21:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    Mere mentions are trivial, which is what most of them are. Directory listings are trivial. Profile pages are the same as directory listings and don't count. His own publications and speeches are self-published works and don't count. Blogs have no editorial oversight and don't count. Right now the article looks like a collection of all possible references, no matter how trivial (a link to an Amazon page? Get real) as a way to create an illusion of notability. Exactly what references do you feel demonstrate significant coverage in reliable independent sources? Please see WP:RS for starters. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
    I find it interesting that mainstream magazines, national radio shows, and media that has received millions of views are considered trivial. The "mentions" are used to back up the facts written in the article. Prior to including the "mentions" in such things like newspapers, etc... it was contested that the facts needed to be backed by some kind of source. These are legitimate sources that have been published over a period of years. There are more sources that will continue to be published over the next 3-5 years. At what point does one cross the threshold? There are hundreds if not thousands of other articles on wikipedia with less notably, a smaller variety of sources (if any), and those articles are in good standing. So what exactly is the issue here and how can it be adjusted? What specifically needs to happen? What I keep getting are different reasons based on subjective opinion and I am sent to things like WP:RS but what I don't understand is how something like Forbes, or a nationally syndicated talk show, or subscription based magazine like CSQ, or a published book, or a University dont meet those requirements. 99Legend ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Chikara Season One

Chikara Season One (  | 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 Chikara Season 11 article has been deleted for a myriad of reasons including:lack of coverage, fan/listcruft, and ultimately not being suitable as a standalone article. LM2000 ( talk) 02:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because the rest of the seasons are nearly identical in structure and should be deleted with Season 11:

Chikara Season Two (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chikara Season Three (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chikara Season Four (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chikara Season Five (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chikara Season Six (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chikara Season 12 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Delete: I support for the same reasons outlined in the season 11 discussion.-- Will C 05:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I happened upon these articles a while ago, and they blew my mind for how detailed and unencyclopedic they seemed. I was tempted to nom for various criteria. I believe the series is probably notable, but the season-by-season textwall synopses seem like they could, and should, be condensed the way, oh, a normal television series is? I don't quite understand the need for the level of detail currently provided. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
We've discussed some merging options in the Season 11 AfD such as expanding here or here, or possibly creating a new article to summarize all of them. I think that the explanation by the keep voters (almost all of whom were sockpuppets) for the excessive detail was that these aren't normal television series (this isn't even a show that airs on television), it's to detail everything that happens in a year worth of Chikara shows. Too much unenclopedic crufty content for that in my opinion. A very condensed version of this content should go somewhere else though. LM2000 ( talk) 05:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Yeah, it's not a television series at all. More like a series of events which made it to DVD... and 4 iPPVs. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Do we really need to have this discussion again? Everything said on the Season 11 deletion discussion applies here and on the other seasons as well. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) ( talk) 07:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge - notability for the company Chikara is established, not so much for each individual season, if you look at the sources. A heavily condensed version combining all the "seasons" (really just a series of live events which made it to DVD, except for 4 iPPVs) could survive as History of Chikara maybe. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge per User:Starship.paint above. - Jorgath ( talk) ( contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

DJ Zo (Zomanno)

DJ Zo (Zomanno) (  | 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 DJ. Article lacks independent, non-trivial references. reddogsix ( talk) 02:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because this artist is extremely relevant in his area of music, both locally and internationally. Despite the lack of information on his notability, he has done many things in and for the music industry including production, creation, and competitions. In addition to that, he has created his own charity, volunteer based program to help those in low income families with minimal access to many different sorts of education. As it can be seen in the article, his name can be found in many other artist's Wikipedia pages and other online services.
As Wikipedia states, any article created after March 8, 2010 requires at least one reliable source. This article has a decently large amount of sources/references.
Lastly, this article will continue to be updated by me personally and whoever else finds it necessary to add information they find on or know about DJ Zo. Therefore, if there are any other issues regarding the notability of this person and the quality of this article, please message me or post on my talk page regarding why you or anyone feels this way. Thank you. Rajzwyn ( talk) 03:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia requires reliable, third-party sources. The references in this article consist of blogposts and YouTube videos (not reliable), the website of his charity (not third-party), and Bandcamp and iTunes Store pages (neither reliable nor third-party). The other links are more of the same, plus some event calendar listings, hardly in-depth coverage. The notability criteria for musicians is at WP:MUSICBIO. He doesn't meet any of them AFAICT. — Gwalla | Talk 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: I should note that I also Googled the name of his charity. A web search found nothing of significance, beyond the charity's homepage mostly just YouTube videos, Bandcamp download pages, and social networking profiles. So that does not look like a promising avenue for demonstrating notability either. — Gwalla | Talk 23:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC) reply

A.Alliance Design International

A.Alliance Design International (  | 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:CORP. Apart from online business directory entries, I have not been able to find much to support notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The 2003 award for a house conversion project and the firm's involvement in that do not look to be of encyclopaedic notability. The firm's website is "under construction" so nothing there, or found elsewhere provides evidence of notability. AllyD ( talk) 07:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Dmitry Volkhov

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

A distinct lack of coverage in reliable sources. Not even the TV show he supposedly appeared on is notable. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC. LuckyLouie ( talk) 02:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Cannot find a single reliable reference for this psychic. Goblin Face ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sources on this article currently don't even come close to meeting the WP:RS standard. Simonm223 ( talk) 14:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can't find anything on Google, Highbeam, or Questia about him. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 18:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to The Wheel of Time. ( non-admin closure) Randykitty ( talk) 13:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Tel'aran'rhiod

Tel'aran'rhiod (  | 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 The Wheel of Time 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) 01:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Mass Merge doesn't seem any more or less notable than any of the other multitudinous WoT pages to exist on Wikipedia. I'd suggest taking all those "concept" articles at the very least and merging them back into the main WoT article setting section with strict observance to WP:DUE Simonm223 ( talk) 15:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as long as the information (obviously summarized) is actually merged instead of just deleted and the article made into a redirect. Spidey 104 01:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_February_26&oldid=1142629214"