Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership in 2020

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

Confusing, unclear article that does not seem to have a clear purpose. smileguy91^talk 22:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedic subject, and we are not a web hosting service or a blog. The author seems to be promoting a series of viewpoints that rely on original research and synthesis. I'd say it's snowing in June. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lovely essay. Too bad we don't publish essays. In parts of the Southern Hemisphere, getting snow in June would be fairly commonplace. Stalwart111 23:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of those articles that doesn't meed the CSD criteria but clearly seems to contain a fair amount of OR, POV, and essentially a textbook case of WP:NOTESSAY. Mkdw ^talk 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Case study in being {{essaylike}}. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worlds chat

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

WP:NN avatar world. Nominated for CSD#A7 by but Bwilkins in 2008 and (IMHO erroneously) declined. No further evidence of notability. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence of notability. Poor reference for entire article. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hate to be the barer of this, but a quick search turned up paywalled papers that discuss it and some others which might make GNG. Paywalled ones include:[1] [2][3]. The "allegedly" first claim is mirrored in this cite [4]. Archive.org provides coverage with Worlds Inc: Worlds Chat, industrial demo of first Internet-based avatar world (May 1995) [5] Some possible images of the earliest build are viewable here.[6] Some archived mentions exist, like this one here.[7]. So... by all accounts, I think it can meet GNG and it does have a verified claim of notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Rooney

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

Only passing mentions in the refs with no depth of coverage. Similar passing mentions in the The Exciters external links. I'm not finding anything better in google. Just being in a notable band doesn't confer notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rooney wrote and co-produced the UK #31 hit Reaching for the Best and wrote and produced the sample staple Synthetic Substitution, which was sampled in over 370 songs.--Laun chba ller 22:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Exciters. There is coverage around that can be used for verification, e.g. [8], [9], [10]. Aside from considerations of notability, there simply in't enough information at present to justify a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've introduced those three to the article.--Laun chba ller 20:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Exciters. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND, the latter of which recommends redirecting members without individual notability to their bands' articles. Perhaps some of the content should be merged, but I can't see a compelling argument for the Exciters' article including (for example) a list of artists with whom Cory Rooney has collaborated; and wouldn't object to redirecting without merging any content. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Tentative keep per WP:COMPOSER #1. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that Rooney is independently notable for writing and producing the sample staple Synthetic Substitution, effectively garnering songwriting credit for such hits as Die in Your Arms and My Life (50 Cent song)?--Laun chba ller 16:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Could you explain why you think having written and produced that song is evidence of notability? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic Substitution was sampled in over 370 songs, effectively garnering Rooney songwriting credit for all 370 uses. Amongst these uses were hits such as My Life, which made #2 on the UK Singles Chart and to my amazement a measly #39 on the Billboard Hot 100, Potholes in My Lawn (first hip-hop song to be played on Mars) and Die in Your Arms by Justin Bieber, which was another top twenty US hit.--Laun chba ller 19:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an argument that relates to a Wikipedia policy or guideline? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPOSER, criteria 1 and 3.--Laun chba ller 21:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be that guy who asks for proof and then insists the proof given isn't good enough, but isn't WP:COMPOSER about classical music? At least that's how I read it, since there must be countless thousands of band members who are credited with writing notable songs but don't have articles. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that one way or another.--Laun chba ller 15:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I've been busy and was hoping someone else would weigh in (often a vain hope at AfD). For the moment at least I've changed my !vote (see above). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you.--Laun chba ller 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the credit claim may be a bit of a push, the sources and coverage are pre-internet era and are likely to be found in archives. Needs expansion, but seems promising. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 King's Cup

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

Unsourced article about a future sporting event. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 22:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Considering the article is a copy and paste of the 2013 lead, everything is in the past tense despite it not happening yet, this should be deleted until the event receives some reliable coverage about it. The dates are still TBA and we're only half way through 2013. Mkdw ^talk 01:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Once the event gets enough coverage and sources, then the article can be remade. Until then, there is no need to have it up as an article. User226 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 09:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We need more reliable sources discussing this tournament before we can create the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rooprai

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

Not have any encyclopedic value. Theman244 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is of encyclopedic value, although it is badly written. AFD is not cleanup. Could be merged if a suitable merge target is identified. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page should not be deleted as it gives information about Ramgarhia clan like other clans of Punjabi tribes/castes that does not have any encyclopaedic value. ☬ ਰਾਮਗੜ੍ਹੀਆ ਮੁੰਡਾ ☬ ^☎ 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because it is terrible doesn't mean it will remain that way. I do not have assess to the clans of India book, but the subject of caste and clans has been researched in India by scholars since the 1800s. Non-english sources will be needed to fill this out. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Decade

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

No reference available no scope of improvement if necessary can be included as a sub section under malayalam literature Benedictdilton (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article text is very specific to Malayalam culture. However that is a particular instance of a term which has been more widely used, in particular by Arthur Koestler in The God that Failed to characterise the fellow-traveller intellectuals of the 1930s. See for example this; a Questia search turns up several books and magazine articles using the term in that context. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced article which could be either a neologism or an issue of synthesis - it's hard to tell without many sources in English which directly address the term. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep However, it should be expanded beyond Malayalam literature. "Pink decade" can be assigned to many communist or communist leaning writers in India, China, Russia and beyond. Refs include [11] for Indian writer Mulk Raj Anand, [12] for Russian writers, [13] for an American writer and [14] for English writer Harold Laski. Bgwhite (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query: Can we find many reliable sources establishing the term "pink decade" as something commonly used? I see what you're saying but we might need to change the articles name, don't you think? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a reasonable expectation of expandability has been presented, and it appears to meet NOTE already. As to MezzoMezzos's point, actually the title is fine, it seems the real edit is the LEAD. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly needs work, but I concur with Maury Markowitz and AllyD. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article speedy deleted (WP:A1 short article without enough context to identify the subject) (non-admin closure). Dricherby (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bongomovie

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

The article is a neologism. There are no sources, and the phrase hasn't been widely used. Citrusbowler (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the template because the page was just nominated for speedy deletion. Citrusbowler (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Benjamin

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

Contested PROD. Article fails both WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not player at senior international level or in a fully-professional league. Being a squad member of a tournament does not confer notability, as consensus in this AFD from February 2012 and this AFD from June 2012 show. Giant Snowman 19:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are you sure he actually fails WP:NSPORT? He plays in a fully pro league, and it strikes me as odd that he would be called to the national team, especially for a major tournament, before making his club debut. Also, statistics on goal.com default to zero if data is missing or incomplete, so the source listed is far from conclusive. Obviously, I can't verify any of this yet, but definitely think a more thorough search for sources is called for. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No stats at Soccerway though of course that could well be incomplete. Players being called-up to the senior international team with no club appearances is not unheard of, such as Corry Evans. Giant Snowman 20:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Assuming it's correct that he's in the squad for the Confederations Cup, that tournament will be over in three weeks so why not wait until then to decide? At that point, if he played a game in the cup, he's presumed notable per WP:NFOOTY; if he didn't, people will have had more time to research whether or not he's played at a high enough level in Nigeria to qualify via that route. Dricherby (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Struck because of new evidence below. Dricherby (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 21:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is a policy about unverifiable speculation about the future. I am not speculating: in three weeks, we'll know whether he's notable or not. Why not wait until then to decide whether or not to delete the article? Dricherby (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per above comments. If he does play in the 2013 Confederation Cup and becomes notable, then the article can be recreated. At this point, I see no point to have it. User226 (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet notability per Struway2's comments and research below. User226 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the football-specific notability guideline by having played since at least February 2011 in the Nigeria Premier League which is listed at WP:FPL. Other mentions in the NPL include July 2012, April 2013, and being one of four "key players" missing Heartland winning the "Super Four" competition, in his case because he was on international duty. This blog speaks of him having a "breakthrough season" in 2012. He was in the provisional squad for the 2013 Africa Cup of Nations, but didn't make the final cut, and had been included previously in national team squads, e.g. [15]. As such, I'd be surprised if he failed the general notability criteria. The reason he has no stats at Soccerway is that Soccerway doesn't yet do stats for the Nigeria Premier League. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally, although his surname according to FIFA's Confed Cup squad lists would appear to be Benjamin, he's referred to much more often as Benjamin Francis. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the presumption of notability by WP:NFOOTY (playing in a fully pro league) as shown by Struway2 above. Dricherby (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems someone else beat me to it. Struway's sources show pretty clearly that he's played in the fully pro Nigerian Premier League, meaning the article passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this player has NOT played in a fully-professional league, see this. Giant Snowman 08:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that an editor querying the value of the reference counts as invalidating the status of the league, but that's just me. Unusually for the list of fully professional leagues, there was a discussion before the NPL was added: please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 35#Nigerian Premier League. Unfortunately the link to the NPL website is now dead, but it seemed acceptable at the time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've worded it poorly; what I meant to say was that there are doubts about the NPL being FPL. Giant Snowman 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as he has played in a fully pro league. Struway's research also indicates that he is close on passing WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails requirements for athletes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Schäfer

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

From my searching, this player has reached no notability requirements of WP:NTENNIS or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. No $35.000 ITF titles in singles or doubles, no main draw appearances in any WTA tournament, no Fed Cup. This is a run of the mill player that wins a round or two of the lowest events possible and picks up a 3 digit check. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator; having reviewed the notability guidelines for tennis, she meets none, nor does she meet WP:GNG ... my Google News search turned up next to nothing. Go Phightins! 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any information whatsoever about $35,000 women's tournaments, and they are not listed as a category of tournament in the article Women's Tennis Association. Do they exist? The subject of this article has won an ITF $25,000 tournament, which is more than 'winning a round or two of the lowest events possible'. Indeed, for tournaments up to 2007 this conferred a presumption of notability. So, the subject of this article does not meet the presumption of notability guidelines, and we need to look at the guidelines in WP:GNG. The articles in Top-Magazin and TTV informiert, which are used as references in the article, would seem to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Coyets (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of James Sanders

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

fails WP:EVENT, WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTNEWS applies. no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep lots of references from independent third parties. I don't know anything about the nominator, but in general deletion nominations such as this make me wonder if someone wants to hide the story. Information in this article may help keep others alive. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. Murders often receive spikes of coverage but needs longstanding notability. Also WP is not a tool for keeping others alive regarding types of murders. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually think the relevant notability guidelines are sort of contradictory, or at least interpreted in a contradictory way. WP:EVENT can't make demands above and beyond those of WP:GNG because the lede of WP:N says that a topic which satisfies either GNG or EVENT is notable. Since GNG is met in this case, EVENT doesn't need to be. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem relevant in this case, though I'd welcome elaboration on which part the nominator thinks applies; and WP:VICTIM refers to biographical articles, which this isn't. 10:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

a fatal car crash or child abuse case in court will get lots of coverage, however for events like this murder and all murder cases on WP. WP:LASTING applies. Otherwise every murder reported in the media gets a WP article. Indeed WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG in these cases. Or a big snowstorm got lots of coverage months ago, does that mean an article is created for it. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes lots of sense and I'd agree if it were an assessment of how notability ought to work; however I don't see how you can reach that conclusion from a reading of WP:N itself, which I'll quote in full: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (emphasis as original) It seems very clear that meeting the GNG alone is always sufficient, regardless of whether any subject-specific guideline is met.

As something of an aside, I think WP:LASTING is a pretty incoherent guideline. It's phrased almost exclusively in the positive sense, i.e., "events with lasting effects are notable" but only explicitly says that events without lasting effects aren't if they're earthquakes or storms. So to read LASTING as saying that a murder with no obvious lasting effects isn't notable is something of a stretch; but maybe we're supposed to take it as implied. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Craigslist Killer#Notable Internet homicides. This is essentially a run-of-the-mill crime, per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. The one detail that makes this special is the Craigslist aspect, and we have an article on that. Boil it down to a paragraph and add it to the list in Internet homicide/Craigslist killer. The changes in Craigslist's warnings hinted at but not explained should also be added -- this is a good opportunity to improve both the Internet homicide and Craigslist articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - third party sources, and plenty of them. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. This is undue emphasis on something that is in its nature quite trivial. The GNG is quite explicit that it does not necessarily mean we must have an article regardless of there being many sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this case went on, and was reported on, for some time, thus passing WP:LASTING] and WP:GNG. In the alternative, merge per DGG. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathyn Brendan Masters

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

I came across this while looking at a related article up for PROD and quickly found that despite a somewhat promising start, this person doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Of the sources on the article, most are unusable as far as establishing notability goes. Here is a rundown of the current sources:

[16] This is the paper of Columbia College Chicago, which Masters was a student of. This is pretty much just a primary source.
[17] This is a piece about his movie, but I can't verify who it was written by and I don't really think this site can be considered a reliable source.
[18] Some random blog-type site, not really the sort that's a RS.
[19] This is pretty much one of the only RS on the page, as DVD Verdict is usable.
[20] Dead link and even if it wasn't, it looks to be your typical non-usable review site.
[21] NN podcast site.
[22] This is Masters' YT for one of his films, so it's primary at best.

Ultimately there just isn't enough there on the article to show notability and the only truly usable link is one DVD Verdict review. Of the claims in the article, the two books are self-published and the other stuff looks to be relatively non-notable as well. I want to note that I had cleaned the puffery out, but left the sources as they were for any incoming editors to look at. This guy just isn't notable right now, if he ever will be. The previous AfD ended in "no consensus", but looks like it should've been a delete. None of the other sources seem to have ever actually come about. Most of what I found on the internet are junk hits and press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the original editor who uploaded this was apparently someone paid to promote actors and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The included sources are pretty generous with words like 'wannabe' and 'aspiring'. There is not enough significant coverage to warrant an article, and I didn't find anything more that would meet WP:BIO guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, I am willing to userfy this article in case anyone wants to work on this article in their own userspace. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carpetball

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

A web search finds no coverage for this sport except for a blog and web site by one person who seems to be behind this article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found some more supporting references. Keep.Wkharrisjr (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too bad you did not see fit to identify those "supporting references, so we could evaluate them. The article's subject is apparently a substitute for pool or billiards which lacks the "sinful" associations of those games, or which is preferable for church camps because it can be played with billiard balls on a cheaply made table. There was apparently unrelated use of the term "carpet ball" for marbles or for some ball game played ion a carpet on the floor in the 19th and early 20th century. The websites promoting this game say it was invented 20 years ago or so and is played at 8 church-related camps. I could not find significant secondary coverage in independent and reliable sites, though there are some passing references or incidental mentions. It is clearly more important than something "made up in school yesterday," but it does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's guideline for notability, WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: Although nom was withdrawn, the deletion !vote precludes a speedy keep, AfD must run full term

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It exists in the youth center world and you can find lots of brief mentions in books and news article, e.g., [23], [24], [25], [26]. Notable? Nothing I found had significant coverage, so I'll leave it to someone else to decide if many brief mentions add up to GNG. Intriguingly, I also found a number of references to a much older (1920s error carpetball, which apparently was an adult team game with leagues. See, e.g., [27], [28]. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now due to lack of secondary sources giving info. (Carpetball.net is now dead, which is not a good sign.) It does seem to be potentially notable. Start the article again when sources take notice of it. Borock (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only "merge" !votes give improper policy-based arguments or no target. Delete due to non-notability/lack of sourcing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conlang X-SAMPA

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

Conlang X-SAMPA is a non-notable revision of X-SAMPA made by and used exclusively in a mailing list which is itself non-notable. I don't see how this could even survive being included on the main X-SAMPA page as it is essentially a homebrew system.Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I'd suggest working this into the main article on the mailing list, except it continues to not have been written (for 6½ years now). Could be mentioned on the main X-SAMPA article perhaps, but yes, doesn't need a full discussion there. (I've contributed almost all of the actual content in this article FWIW, but this has been forked on one of the conlang wikis by now, so nbd.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I scanned the edit history for quantitative editors but forgot to look for qualitative ones. Hermione is a dude (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge; I can see a page on the list, though someone would have to find the reliable sources. This is sub-notable on its own, and probably not notable enough for X-SAMPA; then again, relatively speaking, how much less notable is this then X-SAMPA?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what my opinion is worth, I'd vote for merge, though perhaps not even in its own section. Even if CXS isn't particularly used outside the conlang community, I'd say it's still enough to make some note of it as alternate symbols, though probably just a sentence introducing CXS and then mention the symbols parenthetically. WovenTales (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WovenTales. You are new to Wikipedia, so let me point you to Wikipedia's policy on notability. CXS hasn't been covered by any sources that I can find except on a few personal websites that are presumable run by members of CONLANG. It is basically the linguistics equivalent of a house rule. It's not even used much in the conlanging community as you imply, it is mostly restricted to CONLANG. Even if it were universal within that community, it would still fail to meet notability. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Wikipedia:Notability says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." It's not relevant to the question of whether or not Conlang X-SAMPA should be merged to X-SAMPA or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are more comments needed? Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Postal Locator System

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

Cannot find any references for this at all. Therefore no evidence of notability, but does not fit into any of the CSD, strictly construed. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references available with which to establish notability. - Mr X 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was created today give it some time to let people add to itPug6666 19:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think giving it more time will make it more notable. Also see WP:PLEASEDONT. - Mr X 20:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This went to AfD a whole 67 minutes after it was created with zero evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed or even that a much simpler prod tag was attempted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not specifying precisely that I carried out the steps listed at WP:BEFORE, but I did, and could not find any sources whatsoever, as I mentioned in my rationale, and the only link to it outside the AfD process was added to another article by the creator because it shared the initials APLS.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, and as far as I can tell, is unsourceable. Despite the definition given in the article, I really don't know what it is. Is it a sorting system? Is it a package tracking system? It severely lacks context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Agros Nova. L Faraone 13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarczyn (company)

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

There is no evidence of notability, either in the article or in other sources that I can find. Not a single reference is an independent reliable source, and only one reference actually exists and mentions Tarczyn. It is also largely promotional in character. The article was given a speedy deletion tag, which was repeatedly removed by the creator of the article and an account now blocked as a sockpuppet of the creator. The administrator who eventually declined the speedy deletion (Amatulic) expressed the opinion on the article's talk page that, although it did not qualify for an A7 speedy deletion, it does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The article was deleted via PROD, and has now been restored following a belated contesting of the PROD.

The references are as follows: (1) a page on the web site of Agros Nova. This page does not mention Tarczyn, and even if it did, it would not be an independent source, as Agros Nova owns Tarczyn; (2) a dead link, which in any case was not a reliable source, as it was a FaceBook page; (3) another dead link, this time at the web site of Agros Nova; (4) the one and only reference which actually mentions Tarczyn, again on the web site of Agros Nova. Searching for just Tarczyn produces loads of hits for the town of that name, but not for the company. I tried various more specific searches, such as Tarczyn "Agros Nova", Mazovia Tarczyn, Vetruillo Tarczyn, Tarczyn bicycle. The results I found either were again about the town, or were not independent reliable sources (e.g. there were various business promotion sites).

In the course of using Google translations to check sources, I discovered that substantial parts of the article were verbatim or almost verbatim copies of Google translations of content on Agros Nova's web site, and therefore copyright infringements. Some of this copyright infringement is from the one reference which actually mentions Tarczyn, which raises the possibility that more of the article may have been copied from the other references which are now dead links. If it were definitely known that that is so, the article would qualify for speedy deletion (criterion G12).

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that the creator of this article has a history of creating articles that have been promotional, or copyright infringements, or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 15:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Agros Nova. Contrary to the article's title, Tarczyn is not a company, it's just one of Agros Nova's brands. Before merging, the content should be pruned of copyright infrigements and promotional material (it may be that there will be nothing left). — Kpalion^(talk) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a company before being acquired by Agros Holding in 1990 (a time when many state and cooperatively owned businesses were being snapped up for grosze) so the title is perfectly valid, whether for an article or a redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems reasonable, I am not seeing that many sources, and what I find has weak reliability (ex. [29]). Merging to a parent article seems reasonable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two problems with the suggestion of merging. Firstly, Kpalion says that, once promotion and copyvio have been removed, "it may be that there will be nothing left", and I think that is true. In fact, my impression is that the whole article, or nearly the whole of it, is most probably copyright infringement, in which case the article's history should go. Secondly, there are, as I have explained, no reliable sources for any of the content, and no sources at all (reliable or not) for most of it. It would not be helpful to merge such unsourced content, and if it is merged then it will be liable to be removed again. Tarczyn is already briefly mentioned in Agros Nova, and if anyone can find anything more about Tarczyn to add to that article that has reliable independent sourcing, then it can be added directly, without reference to the article Tarczyn (company). If, on the other hand, nobody can find such sources, then it would be quite wrong to copy unsourced or unreliably sourced content from one article to another. Either way, merging would not be a good option. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge. That does not necessarily mean to merge the whole content. The company's web site is reliable enough for the necessary content to be added to the main article. DGG ( talk ) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - given the problems with the references and copyvio issues, merging does not seem like an appropriate action. Redirect, and iimprove the material at the parent company article with proper sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eo nomine

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

This article is not even worthy of being called a stub. What should be the article's Introduction is really the entire article. The only other part of the article is a single external link. A definition for this Latin phrase belongs in the Wikitionary, but not every Latin phrase deserves its own article in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage. Could be fodder for a good quality improvement project for WP:LAW. — Cirt (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the material in this article to a related article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons provided above. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the specific info currently included could perhaps be merged to Sovereign immunity, the term has broader applicability, as in the context of prejudgement interest. See, e.g. "Interest Eo Nomine versus Interest as Damages". [30] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub article about a legal concept, not a phrase, for which the nominator gives a reason for expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of Phil Bridger above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally, we have kept all legal terms, unless they can be merged properly somewhere, or are so obscure that we can't find any modern sources. Since neither exception applies, then it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. As the nominator said, this is a blatant violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and none of the keep votes rose to the level of replying to that fact. Shii (tock) 02:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of municipal authorities in Adams County, Pennsylvania

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY in a spectacular way. Included entries are mostly red-linked run-of-the-mill agencies with little chance of passing notability guides. Test case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of municipal authorities in Washington County, Pennsylvania was deleted after AfD procedure. I'll be bundling all of the list-class articles which fit the form "List of municipal authorities in Foo County, Pennsylvania" for similar deletion. BusterD (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, I'm bundling the following list of articles for the same reasons given above:

Don't think I missed anyone. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all such directory lists per WP:Not a directory. If people need this info they can go to Google to find the primary list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and thanks to the nom for taking the time to do all of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a shame, because someone has obviously gone to a lot of effort to create this lovely directory... but shouldn't have. Stalwart111 23:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure all of these have the same level of notability. Some of these may be notable and others not p b p 18:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific ones do you think are notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure either, but as nominator, I felt compelled to perform a reasonable WP:BEFORE prior to posting such a large bundled nomination. I'll concede that there are several Pennsylvania municipal authorities which meet standards for inclusion in the pedia. But after actually doing my research, I concluded that these lists of such authorities were virtually identical, as regards NOTDIR. User:Purplebackpack89 might note I didn't choose to include List of municipal authorities in Philadelphia county in this procedure, though that list article might deserve its own AfD procedure to measure consensus per NOTDIR. If that user wishes to make a case for specific examples, I'm interested in reading such argument. BusterD (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Holy crap, what a ton of work for naught. Pretty clearly a failure of NOTDIRECTORY.... Carrite (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The List of municipal authorities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania gives an easy way to learn about the several municipal authorities in Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and surroundings, including the transit authority, the public housing authority, and other notable and important municipal authorities. Please provide notification to the Pittsburgh project. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I still hold my original position, I'd be willing to withdraw nomination on List of municipal authorities in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. BusterD (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dthomsen8. This is quite encyclopedic, you able to learn how everything works, and information about each authority. Dream Focus 14:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To keep all of these pointless redlink farms because of a single county is absurd. The nom offered to remove one and leave the rest. That's completely reasonable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the others have blue links in them. Doesn't matter though, since they have room to expand. Nothing gained by deleting something that might be useful to people one day. They can at least find the name of things in each area, and search from there on their own. Dream Focus 16:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most that have any, have 1-2 actual links compared to an overwhelming majority of redlinks. 1-2 isn't justification for a list. This notion that "someday it could be useful" is a dodge. Today they're not useful and I am willing to bet you have no plans to improve them all. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. Open and shut textbook case. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresible Corporations

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

CSD contested. No indication that company (Nigerian multinational conglomerate company with 120.000$ revenue and 18 employees) meets WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no evidence this corporation even exists. For a conglomerate with such varied interests, $0.12 million USD seems rather paltry for revenues. The domain for their web site is suspended or expired. The sourcing provides no coverage in reliable sources. In chasing down the sources listed in the article, this one would appear to point to the whole thing is a hoax. It's a press release type posting which ppoints to this SC Magazine article. The article makes no mention of Fresible, and is infact, about something completely different despite the URL having "oyetayo-fred-appointed-as-ceo-of-fresible-corporations" in the path. A quick check finds that SC Mag website will acept aything in that path and apepars to go solely based on article ID as substituting "this-is-a-hoax" into the URL works just as well. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dariush Mehrjui. SarahStierch (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumi's Kimia

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

As far as I can tell, nothing whatever had been heard of about this in the last two years. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this has some sourcability from 2010 and 2011, we can Redirect and source it as a work-in-progress on the director's page with no prejudice toward undeletion or recreation when if or when we learn it has been completed and released... probably under a different name. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment I accept MQS';s suggestion. Perhaps someone else will close this accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunstone Circuits

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

Topic does not pass WP:ORG or GNG. I have done the standard searches, and I find no independent sources that discuss the company (not even simple news coverage). There is no indication that this company should be considered notable. WP:NOT#Advertizing may be an issue as well. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I also think this company fails WP:GNG for lack of reliable, in-depth coverage of the company itself. Most of the information came from a COI source and contains promotional content. JFHJr (㊟) 22:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These guys were there in the early days. Historical value. History2007 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being "there in the early days" is not notable, unless sources discuss this fact. If there is historical value, there should be sources to support that historical value. I have not been able to find any. If you can find sources I would be happy to withdraw the nomination... but without them, no. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand the desire for a more thorough discussion before this is closed... may I ask that we not relist it a fourth time. There comes a point when we have to accept that everyone who has something to say has said it. The next question is whether the lack of discussion says anything about the topic's notability (or not)?
Delete Other than a penalty notice issued by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, I am not finding anything beyond routine product and appointment marketing announcements for this company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per AllyD. The subject would seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and any historical significance (part of being "there in the early days") would need to be verified by reliable sources which is doesn't seem is possible. Stalwart111 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering & Management Durgapur

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

Delete non notable private school, only references provided are the school brochure. I personally view this more as a promotion article but as schools are A7 exempt elected to bring it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be a copy of Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering and Management Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Durgapur, West Bengal#Education. It would seem reasonable that this might be a search term, perhaps, although it does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. Same also goes for the other article that it is a copy of. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified degree-awarding institution affiliated to the public West Bengal University of Technology. It is our usual practice to keep such colleges. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 13:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding for the Better Philippines

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

Non-notable blog/website. According to the article, there are approximately 657,000 more notable websites. Although the site statistics are quite detailed, there is nothing in the article that explains why this blog is notable (unique perspective, used as source by acadamia, referred to by other notable blogs, etc). I could find no sources referencing this blog, other than self-references and this Wikipedia article. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be safe to speedy delete the article as A7? If not, it's still an unremarkable website. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for speedy delete or to delete the Rebuilding for the Better Philippines. The subject indicates importance or significance which did not violate A7. It exist and to make it fair, itemized, enumerate, and cite all the violations and reasons why are we going to delete it. Please Check Articles A7. Lets interpret every words and every violations carefully. In fact if we could add all the top 1 Million notable websites in the world to be listed here in Wikipedia then why not?. Instead of deleting one, Why should not list all top 1 Million notable websites in the world ? Try to consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, or handled in some other way instead of deleting it. Prince_denison ^tccsdsd

If it can't be deleted per A7, as there's little, if any, independent coverage for either the publication or the blog, it's still not notable, as such, my !vote stands. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s make it clear to everyone base on rules, policy and articles as stipulated by the Articles of Wikipedia. “What are the bases of deleting articles? Is it by qualifying as violating the policy and standards or rules as a primary guideline in deleting articles or based on personal opinion, thought, feelings and emotion? I want to invoke the rule of Law, policy and guidelines to decide not by human feelings, emotions and personal opinion. Deleting is not a big issue for this. It could be deleted by any administrator who has the power to delete. The reason why it reached up to debate as there is a policy and procedure which is being followed how and when to delete. What matters most is.. Is there any rule of law in Wikipedia Prince_denison(talk) ^tccsdsd 07:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated this for deletion was because it meets criteria #7 and #8 of policy WP:DEL-REASON. Prince denison, you've spent a lot of time on this article, it is formatted very nicely. If you can find some reliable sources regarding the subject and establish that it is Notable, I'd love to see this artice rescued (kept), and my nomination declined, but as it stands this does not seem to be an encyclopedic subject. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is primarily primary sourcing. My own searches turn up nothing usable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not appear to have received in-depth significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; therefore the subject of this AfD does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ 78.26 Don't take it personally as the article is owned by wikipedia not mine. You want to know if I spent lot of time in this article its somewhat personal but I should say "no" its just about 15 minutes during my break time when I saw the site which is crowded with so many comments. Since you take me personally about this I would reply to you not to worry. You don't need to say that "you'd love to see this artice rescued (kept), and your nomination declined" because deleting this article is not a big deal but a consensus decision of so many admins. We have the rule of law here and Majority rules and I believe in it . At least also a busy person like me who do not have so much time for this great Wikipedia meets Great people like you, which for me is awesome. (This is called a close encounter between a sheep and a group of lions) I hope also that in cases like these, a debate like this would always happened so the due process is well observed. Thumbs up to all of you guys. Job well done. I am eyeing a new website to be posted here soon its like Paypal, I am searching its full info.. I hope you will help me find the sources and help me build the article so it would not be deleted. Prince_denison (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sourcing: here is an interesting problem. I found nothing on Google books, scholar, or news. Also, I found nothing on JSTOR. Yet, I found a few sources on Bing, see Heritage Foundation, an election website, etc. I'm not sure if they prove notability, as the mentions are passing or coincidental. In any case, sourcing is going to be a real issue here. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Perhaps I missed it, but I cannot find any reference to "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" in the heritage.org article. The subject matter may overlap with what the "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" blog covers, but is not coverage about the site. the second site simply has the "Rebuilding for the Better Philippines" added as a feed on the page and does not appear to be a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnard object

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

Don't believe that this merits an article of its own. Perhaps merge to dark nebulae? Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move Think this is worthy of its own article, but should be moved from Barnard object to Barnard('s) catalogue or similar and constructed in the form of a list, similar to Messier's catalogue. Various sources exist, e.g. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001yCat.7220....0B and there are numerous hit on Google Scholar. SheffGruff (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable catalogue, but really should be moved, as mentioned above, to Barnard Catalogue, as the article is about the whole catalogue, not the objects in it. The topic itself though has coverage in many places though, search on Google Scholar. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this should be about the the catalog of Barnard objects and be renamed to Barnard Catalogue. In addition to the Harvard ref above, there is an an online version of A Photographic Atlas of Selected Regions of the Milky Way at the [Georgia Tech library], which has pictures of many of the nebulae in the catalog and some secondary commentary. Another secondary source is Lynds' 1962 reprint and commentary on the catalog at [31]. There are many more sources on GScholar. Multiple reliable sources and availability of secondary sources makes this topic notable and the article, although but a short stub, should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_dark_nebulae#Barnard_objects. Don't oppose creating Barnard Catalogue, either. Ansh666 22:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but AfD is not really for such discussions. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cool (song)

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

Not notable, no RS just a fan site. Tyros1972 Talk 07:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is is so damn difficult to get articles published on Wikipedia ? This single was released by this band. I have listed evidence, what more do you need ?(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5b3TnY (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publishing service. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monstereo Delicio...unless sources are provided for the chart positions, that is. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 10:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have found a reference that shows the single was nominated for an ARIA Music Award in 1991. I have reformatted the article and added additional references.
Note: "Joe Cool" was released before Monstereo Delicio was recorded and therefore should not be redirected to the album Dan arndt (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's just a post on Google Groups Forum, that's user created like a blog. That's not reliable source. Tyros1972 Talk 07:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Allmusic says "The singles, ‘Surfing on a Wave of Love’/‘He’s Hell’ (1989) and ‘Joe Cool’ (1990) were independent chart-toppers in the band’s native Australia" ref supplied in article. Redirect to album article not entirely valid as it was originally a single-only release and only appeared as a bonus track on a re-issue of the album.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. Troy Jenkins

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

Former local politician and now municipal administrator who fails to meet WP:POLITICIAN – hasn't held provincewide office or higher, wasn't a major local political figure that received significant press coverage (being youngest elected in history of municipality isn't sufficient as every municipality has a youngest elected official) and no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Also note article appears to have been created by T. Troy Jenkins himself. Hwy43 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His current employment in local government administration is not notable; his political activities don't meet our notability guidelines for politicians and I can't see any evidence of passing the general notability guidelines, either. I couldn't find any Google News hits for '"Troy Jenkins" cape breton' or '"Troy Jenkins" nova scotia' (there are plenty of other Troy Jenkinses in the world, so some limitation is needed). I also note that the only claim in the article that is in any way out of the ordinary (being the youngest person to serve on that particular council, which I agree isn't sufficient on its own) is unsourced. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No strong claim of notability here, nor are there particularly strong reliable sources being cited (one of them, in fact, is a staff directory.) In practice, only major metropolitan cities, which the CBRM is not, are allowed to claim notability for their municipal councillors, and even fewer municipalities ever get to claim notability for their city managers (I just checked all of Canada's ten largest cities' managers/CAOs, and Penny Ballem in Vancouver is the only one who actually has an article. Seriously, not even Joe Pennachetti.) In addition, there's a conflict of interest issue, as the article was created by User:Ttroyjenkins and subsequently edited by User:Troyjenkins1973. Bearcat (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Goes On - U-ya Asaoka

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

Opening song of Chouseishin Gransazer, questionable notability (no third-party references). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Oricon, this single did chart in Japan, reaching no. 55 on the singles chart (see here). According to WP:NSONG, this can be a criterion for notability, but perhaps not a sufficient criterion. Michitaro (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Song by a non-notable artist. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage, so it's hard to see how this satisfies the basic notability criteria at WP:NSONG. --DAJF (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks sources and doesn't meet WP:NSONG (at least in my opinion). Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's even at a nonstandard title so the usual concession of a redirect (to GranSazers, presumably) doesn't really apply. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Non-notable song by non-notable artist. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep/withdrawn to provide for some construction time (non-admin close). Stalwart111 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damayan Buluseño

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

Lacks any notable RS, just seems like an advertizement. Tyros1972 Talk 07:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I am still creating the article and its not yet finished. You tagged it too early that's why it looked like it lacks sources. Try to visit the article again.Kuya kyon (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the future you should use the Template:Under construction as it tells editors you are working on it. Tyros1972 Talk 09:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added under construction tag and also left author a message on their talk page. Due to the circumstance I ask this AfD be withdrawn. Tyros1972 Talk 10:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yea Big + Kid Static. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea Big

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

Non notable group. Koala15 (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2013 (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/2013 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you haven't even looked closely enough at the article to know that this isn't a group, why should we waste time discussing this? --Michig (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Yea Big + Kid Static. Plausible search term at worst. Gong show 18:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Yea Big + Kid Static. Clearly appropriate as a redirect at minimum. --Michig (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunter (singer)

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

Non notable artist, article reads like self promotion, he has made a couple of shows here and there, but has no known/charting songs. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 06:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist. Many references. Reason given "he has made a couple of shows here and there" is easily refutable by a great number of big concerts throughout United States and Latin America and appearances on many popular Latin television networks werldwayd (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Hunter has been nominated in the "Favorite Pop Artist" category of the 2013 Premios Juventud (results to be announced 18 July 2013). See http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/listadenominadosalospremiosjuventud-1736055.html. This is further proof of notability. werldwayd (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable musician, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've just added a bunch of citations to the article. It was very easy to do so. Mr Hunter clearly meets WP:BAND #4 (coverage of an international tour) and may meet WP:BAND #8 (Premios Juventud 2013 nominee). And, y'know, good ol' WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by multiple independent sources. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Primarily per DGG - this article needs to be carefully watched to prevent SPAM from returning (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant Academy

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

Advertisement, no categories, no references, using facebook twitter as external links, promotional unencyclopedic advertisement Solomon7968 (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a typical Indian "crammer", preparing people for entry examinations - Arjayay (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cram spam, article has no value and is purely promotional. --Bob Re-born (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after clean up is the renowned cram-school of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladekar (talk • contribs) 06:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) — Ladekar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete. There are a few reliable sources given, but I don't think they distinguish this school from all the millions (that's not hyperbole) of such institutes of its kind in India. The coverage certainly isn't significant. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are making the ludicrous claim that there is more than one such crammer per thousand population then that claim most certainly is hyperbole. Please try to keep your statements within the realm of credibility. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indian cramming schools are a major part of the education scene there. (as in a fe wother countries). This particular one is well documented by the Times of India articles. There is a certain degree of suspicion for all Indian newspapers that they base their stories on press releases, but the first cited article very clearly is not a press release. That the leading English-language newspaper in the country published several extensive articles on them is notability. The articles clearly do establish the status. I wonder if the doubters can find similar coverage for others--in which case we should probably write articles about it. I'm sure they won;t find it for "millions". 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, and only after cleanup. I think the references in the article show that it just barely passes notability requirements. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , Not a notable institute. It is a coaching center and the page is created for publicity/ marketing purpose. There are lot of coaching institute in almost each and every street. I strongly recommend to delete this page. Jussychoulex (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The coaching is one of the most prestigious in India. and there are many reliable sources given. Shivamsetu (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Shivamsetu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single reliable reference which shows the notability of the Vibrant Academy. All references just tell about the Kota city, which has become the hub of thousand of coaching centers. Vibrant Academy is one on them. It is a purely a promotional page. There are many coaching institutes like this in almost all the streets of India.Jussychoulex (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% promotional page of a coaching center (its is not a academic institute, which provides degrees). There are many coaching centers in almost all the streets of India, like this. This page was made by a student of this coaching center 'Shivam Setu' see http://in.linkedin.com/in/shivamsetu. Shivam Setu also made his promotional page on Wikipedia, which was SPEEDY DELETE, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shivam_Setu&action=edit&redlink=1. I am shocked to see that this page is still surviving here on Wikipedia. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is well deserved article. There is coverage in reliable secondary sources, e.g.- The Times of India, The Telegraph (Calcutta), Forbes India etc. Misscric indi (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)— Misscric indi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:Misscric indi has done little or no edits except this AFD. Solomon7968 06:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus and jurisprudence is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Indonesia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. I found no significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. no evidence of state visits, neither country has an embassy. the fact that Albania backed an unsuccessful bid for Indonesia to get a non permanent seat of the UN security council doesn't add much. the level of trade is very low, less than USD$5M. many companies trade more than that a day. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another one of these... 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO bilateral relations are always intrinsically notable, and they can be almost always sourced reliably. Even the very fact that the relationship is factually trivial is an interesting information to the reader, while the absence of the article does not imply so: it just leaves the reader in the dark. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP also does not contain articles about most of the world's laws. absence of an article does not imply the legislation does not exist, nor does it leave the reader in the dark. WP:ITSINTERESTING is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of a notable relationship at present Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Cyclopia, a bilateral relationship, although not intense or "notable" is still exist and deserve an article, although just a short or stub one is better than nothing. Actually in Indonesian view, Albania stand out as a European nation with Muslim majority, similar case with Bosnia-Herzegovina. (note: Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world). Moreover there are tons of other bilateral relations articles that provides less data, less information, and probably less notable than this one exist.Gunkarta (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the simple fact that 2 countries have the same religious majority does not mean a notable relationship. how about some sources to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (also I recommend bundling noms of similar topics in the future) (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Shuck (song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability This is incorrect; the issue is only whether the coverage is significant or not. There could conceivably be significant coverage of a song in an album review, and depth of coverage can be built up from numerous reviews. This stands for all your recent nominations following this one. 86.42.93.209 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The songs do not meet the guidelines at WP:MUS/SONGS from what it says there. All songs from the first two Darkness albums all have separate articles. All articles excluding charted singles contain quotes and sound bites from reviews of either Permission to Land or One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. The first criteria of verifying notability states: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." All non-single releases by The Darkness are album tracks and are not the subjects of any press coverage. The subject is either Permission to Land or One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Furthermore, the songs have not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, as they are not singles. They have not won one or more significant awards or honors. And they have most certainly not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. If this was the practice for all artists then Kid A for example would have articles for every track, as would Be Here Now. The Darkness are no exception. Look at The Darkness' third album Hot Cakes, the less popular album is clearly setting an example for the first two. Bluidsports (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That criteria in fact reads "Has been the subject ¹..." The cite note is necessary so that WP:NM is in line with the WP:GNG, which is explicit on the point: "it need not be the main topic of the source material". (Subjects need to pass either the subject-specific guideline or the GNG.) 86.42.68.128 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is anyone interested in actually giving their opinion here. All the other afd's for non notable Darkness songs failed to reach consensus. Does anyone else agree with me that all Darkness songs, except charted singles cannot have their own separate article using sound bites and quotes from album reviews; that is exactly the case here. No one seems interested, except one engaged user, who did at least suggest merging two of them. He did, thankfully agree with me on the notion that they had no outright notability. Bluidsports (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you are so starved of input, perhaps you should engage with the comment above. 86.42.72.87 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above has no strong argument. This song and every other Darkness album track have no distinction of notability. Anyone could easily create articles for any band of their choosing simply by using quotes and sound bites from the album reviews. The truth is, no Darkness songs apart from their charted singles have any notability. You just can't deal with that for some reason. Bluidsports (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what i'm talking about, let's use a good example. How about OK Computer, a featured article on Wikipedia. You will notice that 5 songs out of 12 have their own separate article. Three of them are singles, "Paranoid Android", "Karma Police" and "No Surprises". Out of the other two tracks that are notable, "Lucky" was released as a single in France, and was included in The Help Album. "Exit Music (For a Film) is particularly notable for featuring on the closing credits of the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Unfortunately "Black Shuck" has never ventured outwith the Hawkins' bedroom [32]. As for any other Darkness song. Bluidsports (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see debate here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinner Lady Arms. Another Darkness non-single album track identical to this song lacking notability. There is a clear consensus developing here that the song "Dinner Lady Arms" meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS. That same conclusion applies to "Black Shuck". Bluidsports (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it demonstrates nothing to point to those articles. you nominated a bunch of articles all at once on the basis that "all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability", a basis that has no reflection in guideline or policy. if you got one of these closed as "merge" that will only result in a stupidly imbalanced album article, so, uh, well done i guess. between the choice of merging every song back to the album article, resulting in long, detailed album articles, and respecting the choice of the editors who actually did the work of sourcing and writing these articles, i would choose the second. anything outside of these two choices plainly degrades quality. 86.42.83.209 (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you accept that the basis for all these nominations was that you misread what "the subject" meant in the only criteria you have ever cited? 86.42.83.209 (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support merging articles. I agreed with the user who said the songs were not notable; but merging them would create disordered and unnecessary extended articles which would look unappealing. Instead of putting the work into sourcing and writing separate articles, it would make more sense to expand the album articles. Writing sections such as: background, recording, music and lyrics, critical reception. There is no need to do such a thing for each individual song, each song article does not need a section titled release history and critical reception. Critics give their opinion on the album as an entire output, not individual songs unless it's a popular charted single. Bluidsports (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McKenna

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

No real notability is asserted here other than having run for office once and lost primary and serving as a state party chairman. This page has been a micro-stub for years and doesn't really appear it can be anything more than that and content is merely the pieces of trivia that he was a chairman once. Recommend delete. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [33]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

CommentWhen this was WP:PRODded, I recommended AFD because I was not sure if a state party chairman position was notable enough to justify a WP article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. McKenna is a very prominent figure in Illinois business and politics, and has been for decades. He has been on the board of directors of McDonald's since 1991 and has been the non-executive Chairman since 2004. He has also served on the board of Aon Corporation and is a director of Skyline Corporation. From McDonald's SEC filings: "He has served over the years on many civic, community and philanthropic boards and currently serves as a trustee of Ronald McDonald House Charities, Museum of Science and Industry and University of Notre Dame and as a director of Big Shoulders Fund of the Archdiocese of Chicago, Children’s Memorial Hospital of Chicago, Ireland Economic Advisory Board, Lyric Opera of Chicago and United Way of Metropolitan Chicago among others. Mr. McKenna is also the Founding Chairman of Chicago Metropolis 2020." No question the stub needs a lot of work, but we don't delete stubs of notable people just because the article needs work.-- DS1953 ^talk 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Assorted sources do appear to exist to support the conclusion that he's an important business figure, and could be used to flesh out this article. A 2012 profile in Crain's Chicago Business calls him "McDonald's power behind the throne" and says, "Mr. McKenna has been in the public eye for half a century. A fixture of Chicago's business and civic scene and former Mayor Richard M. Daley's kitchen cabinet, he spearheaded high-profile mayoral initiatives such as Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics. He's a director of the Chicago Bears, Aon Corp. and Skyline Corp., which makes mobile homes." [34] More shows up on GNews; there also seem to be a lot of results on HighBeam, for which, unfortunately, my account has expired. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Santos (musician)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are is no significant coverage in WP:RS. The only reference besides his Discogs profile is his personal website. Maybe someone can come up with something in another language, but there is nothing to support this person's notability, especially the claim that he is "one of the pioneer producers of the Portuguese electronic music scene." FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had axed some of the external links before on this article, but I couldn't find anything to back up the claims. The interwiki link doesn't help either. But please relist this just to get more eyes on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Moral

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

This was nominated for PROD but I feel AFD is better way to go. I do not believe this person meets notability guidelines as a creative professional. The sources appear to cover plays or production that the subject was involved with but it is not coverage on the article subject. I'm not sure that Maryland Distinguished Young Scholar of the Arts helps elevate her to a stand alone article sts either. It also reads more as a resume and promotion then a valid encyclo article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PRODder. Red Slash 04:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A young performing arts student. No evidence that she meets the WP:NACTOR criteria at this time; at best a long way WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:DIPLOMAT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Bernard-Meunier

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. also a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) did not result in inherent notability for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was Ambassador to Germany, one of the half-dozen most important diplomatic posts in any country, which makes her one of Canada's most senior diplomats and therefore clearly worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she still needs her achievements covered in third party coverage, have you looked? Simply being an ambassador to Germany does not mean an automatic article. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion on which you and I clearly disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the notability guideline which says being ambassador to Germany means being notable? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not bound by rules. Opinion is valid at AfD and I have just given one! I do not need to quote a guideline to back up my opinion. Neither does a guideline need to exist to make my opinion valid. Please note that WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Amazing how many people think it is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your !vote would be a lot stronger if you provided evidence of coverage. have you even looked? LibStar (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one nominating for deletion. Have you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your response you haven't. refer to my nomination coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going round in circles here. Kindly refer to my first comment. I consider this sufficient to keep the article. Let's leave it there. The decision is down to neither you nor me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me you haven't looked for sources. The onus is on keep !voters is to prove notability by finding actual sources not inventing criteria like "ambassador to Germany is notable". Your arguments for keep are not solid. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments to keep are based on my opinion, which is perfectly valid at AfD. If you don't agree with it then that's fine, but please don't try and claim that it's not valid. As I've already said, that's not your decision to make. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are opinions on how a notability guideline is met or not met. Not an opinion that something is WP:ITSNOTABLE by inventing your own criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you misunderstand the meaning of the word "guideline"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clearly you are making zero effort to find sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all this because I said I thought she was notable. You really must want this article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WP:ITSNOTABLE. All this time you spent arguing you've never found one source. Maybe you've tried to look and found nothing that's why you've shown no sources.LibStar (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread the section you've just cited to check what it actually says as opposed to what you think it says. I have provided an explanation of why I think she's notable. You just don't agree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is not a question of merely asserting a distinction, but of the reliable sources that can or cannot be brought to support it — especially when we're talking about a WP:BLP. There are lots of people who certainly seem like they should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by virtue of their role (this happens quite a lot with diplomats and broadcasters, to name just two examples), but who just aren't actually the subject of enough media coverage in reliable sources to actually get past WP:GNG. These people are not automatically notable enough for articles just because they exist, if the articles cannot actually be properly sourced — but the only source that's present here is a bare directory listing of everybody who's ever held a Canadian diplomatic posting since 1800, and it doesn't even support the article's actual content, because if you click on her name in that list the only posting that shows up is to UNESCO. Which means, in other words, that all we have here is verification of her existence, while the actual claim of notability is wholly unverifiable as things currently stand. Accordingly, I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if real sources actually start showing up — but in its current form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take this back slightly — for some reason she has two separate listings, one at "Bernard-Meunier, Marie" which does verify the claimed Netherlands and Germany postings, and one at "Meunier, Marie-Bernard" which only lists UNESCO. So the ambassadorial postings are verifiable after all, but now her correct name isn't (both versions are completely plausible). And the mere fact of being listed in a directory still doesn't constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources to make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article, so this still isn't keepable without sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Grey

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

Writer with no strong evidence of notability. The article cites just one reliable source, but it's not about him in any meaningful way — besides mentioning his name and providing a brief critical analysis of his book, it contains no substantial information about him at all — and Google turns up no other reliable sources about him. I can't properly verify his claimed death, I can't properly verify his claimed friendship with a convicted killer, and on and so forth. Furthermore, the article was written by somebody who is also mentioned in the body as a collaborator of his, meaning there are WP:COI issues here to boot — which, as always, isn't an unforgiveable sin if there are reliable sources we can use to clean it up. But there aren't. And if I trim it back to the one statement in the entire article that can be properly sourced — i.e. the one statement that already is — then there's simply not enough notability there to justify an article at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WRITER. His book Sweet Home Chicago was appreciated by Yann Martel, but I can't find any WP:RS reviews (either in general Google search or on the usual review sites). Book was published by a small press which Grey co-founded[35] which doesn't necessarily prove non-notability, but means he's less likely to get reviews than if he was with one of the bigger publishers or well-known indies. Article mentions another novel Soo Line Sling but I can't find anything about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Failure to meet WP:WRITER. Brendon is here 10:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WRITER criteria. Finnegas (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). Clear redirect as per discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Avenue

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

Having done a search myself, I find it unremarkable organization. Not worthy of keeping in Wikipedia. Hussnain.wiki (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No evidence that this retail outlet is notable. Only reference is an event announcement, which falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (Struck previous opinion in the light of Mabalu's more assiduous reading of the rather strange article history.) Restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan), which has documented use of this term. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). Almost total absence of sources - I tried searching with Lahore and Pakistan and Vogue Towers as additional keywords - absolutely no hits. Actually, looking at the edit history, I am now puzzled - it looks like the nominator replaced the redirect with the current article, and has now nominated their own work for deletion instead of restoring the redirect they overwrote in the first place? Mabalu (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per above. Brendon is here 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt per Mabalu. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). I created this article when I found some information on this organization at some notable newspapers. However after doing some additional research I found that this retail outlet is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Therefore I nominated it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.141.244 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masum Pervez Rubel

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

Grossly unsourced content; the only given source (though reliable) only suggests that an actor with that name exists (he's only been quoted about saying something not so relevant to his career as an actor). Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Will change my mind if someone can provide more reliable sources that prove something more than the actor's existence. smtchahal^talk 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (DC Talk album)

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

This was part of a series of similarly titled released by the parent label (EMI Christian music). The series received little media coverage and as album shows, were not particularly notable. No WP:RSes chronicle their existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (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/2013 May 23. Snotbot t • c » 15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Man (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bald (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Eyes

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. SarahStierch (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner Lady Arms

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the four criteria met, first criteria applies to the album rather than the song. SheffGruff (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Poorly written and meets none of the four criteria. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Not notable. Adabow (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knockers (song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding My Own (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the Rocks with No Ice

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. There are also Youtube links used as cites, which is poor manual of style. Bluidsports (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Givin' Up (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Mark_Abraham. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abraham

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

Unable to find any coverage of this fellow outside of social media and wikimirrors. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's an asteroid discoverer, which is enough notability for me. Copied his entry to List_of_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Mark_Abraham. This article can now be replaced by a redirect. Urhixidur (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The more recent news additions assist in notability - I'm considering Ultra's comment a keep !vote due to the finding of sources (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rahma Mosque

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

No reliable sources. Only recently established. Luciandrei (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 22:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 22:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A building that can accommodate over 2,000 worshippers and is the principal place of worship for a major religion in a major city is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Maybe - but I think we'd have a far stronger case for notability if the mosque had actually been noted in reliable sources. And so far, I'm coming up empty. This may well be a case of "Not yet" as opposed to "Not ever". UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Brendon is here 08:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a notable mosque, Catholic school trips are scheduled there as part of promoting “community cohesion”."Roman Catholic schoolgirl labelled 'truant' for refusing to wear headscarf on mosque trip" The Telegraph. The mosque promotes community development Williams, Liza (10 July 2007). "Mosque and residents in bid to save derelict houses". Liverpool Daily Post.. --Bejnar (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A summary of the valid arguments for deletion: inflammatory title; info is appropriately covered elsewhere under more generic terms; sourcing/NPOV. As an aside, the behaviour of some of the participants has been outrageously inappropriate, and 180 degrees contrary to what is expected on this project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Muslim pogroms in India

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

Previously speedy deleted as A10 for duplicating Persecution of Muslims#India. Same issue still present. But can't CSD it now as its not "recently created" anymore. Also, the article is based on a POV of some writers who have called these persecutions as "pogroms". The term "pogrom" by definition is to be used for attacks on Jewish citizens, which have approval of govt authority. The people in this subject are not Jewish and no proof of approval by government authorities is shown. Even if we disregard this and if the title still wants to use "Pogrom", the word has to be so common in use in this context that no other neutral name is possible. But here, the word is not a common word for these incidences. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks well sourced no need for deletion. Baboon43 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But precisely those sources are cherry-picked to suit a specific agenda. Read what I wrote below. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As a bad faith nomination, given the nominator himself has said on his talk page that he has not checked the sources. All the incidents in the article are directly called pograms by the sources, this is a legitimate subject of academic interest. All sources used are from academic publishers. 05:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) comment added by Darkness Shines (talk · contribs)

My reading or not reading all sources doesnt solve the problem of duplicate article. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is not established by bunch of so-called-academic-publishers. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

& DS, please sign your own comments. You should know that this is not a ballot. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the article creator Darkness Shines is calling this nomination as "bad faith" after their attempt to move the article 2002 Gujarat violence to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 failed. Just noting here to clarify on who has what faiths. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: After the failed attempt to move 2002 Gujarat violence to "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002", User:Darkness Shines went on to create the article Anti-Muslim pogroms in India as well as the category with the same name. The article was deleted and he created it again, some of us believe the sources are cherry-picked as a user (Pectore) mentioned here. There are more issues, we couldn't move a page from Godhra train burning to Godhra train violence even though the name is imprecise and vague, precisely because the majority of the sources didn't call it by that name.

Going by this logic,

Common name: If we take the most controversial story of them all, Gujarat Violence in 2002.
Google returns 478,000 hits for "2002 Gujarat violence"
Google returns 498 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002"
Google returns 1 hit for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 Gujarat"
If we generalize even further and perform a sweeping search of all the articles about anti-muslim pogroms in 2002 irrespective of location, even then google returns only 11,000 hits for "Anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002". It is not at all referred to as "pogrom" by general media.
Abuse of the word "pogrom": This term originates from 19th-century Tsarist Russia where it was first used to label attacks against Jewish civilians that were instigated and condoned by the authorities but carried out by civilian mobs who acted with impunity while the police watched idly. Two issues:
1. The trigger cause of the '02 violence was Godhra Train burning. It was not instigated/approved/condoned by the Gujarat authorities. That accusation has been nullified in the court of law. Far from stoking violence, the authorities, in an attempt to quell the riot, actually declared a curfew immediately after the first signs of attack — and this was spelled out even in media reports. Thus, the police didn't sit back and watch idly. In fact no charges have been brought against Gujarat administration of 2002.
2. Don't forget riots of 2002 included murder of 250+ Hindus and ended with the criminals getting their due share of comeuppance from the court. In the aftermath of 2002 Gujarat violence a good many people (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, they weren't acting with "impunity".
Misrepresentations: along with classic misrepresentation of sources' claims, it frames personal opinions as assertions of fact on many counts. Many of the sources are unverifiable online, but that's permitted. The issue is Darkness Shines has always been discourteous in past, when faced with a request to provide copies of the sources. He has a habit of claiming a lot, but he is actually willing to verify very, very little.
Distortion / omission of sources: The article cherry-picks a handful of sources from a big set where the vast preponderance of entries don't label or frame these incidents as "pogroms". It often omits, and occasionally distorts, the accepted theory about the cause as well as the aftermath of these riots and also the punitive actions against Criminals taken by the government. All this in order to make it seem that the crimes are "pogroms", and not riots.
General bias in tone: In addition to the issues I touched above, that article is rabble-rousing to the point of ridiculousness, it has to be non neutral in order to conform with the biased topic. Just because some "author" doesn't know how to use the word pogrom in right context or intentionally abuses it to create confusion, or tremendously lacks basic knowledge of history, does it make every one of these radical claims true? That article is a POV-hellhole, and the language, oooh, it's pure seditiousness.

Apart from that, how on earth could typical acts of inter-communal violence and riots like Bombay Riots or Nellie massacre, or 1989 Bhagalpur violence be labelled as "pogroms"? There's no denying that religious violence has always existed in India as a pestilence since the very inception of that civilization, but to label them as "pogroms" while only focusing on "anti-muslim" violence is grossly biased. If we try and painstakingly search for sources about "Anti-Christian holocaust" we will find plenty to create an article much like this one, but we don't have an article on "Anti-Christian holocaust". Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 06:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See what Admin:Future Perfect at Sunrise wrote about the article's bias and misrepresentation of the source. One snippet of the comment provided below,
"If this had been written by a newbie, one might consider it a one-off mistake. But it's been written by an active, long-term contributor with a months-long involvement in POV fights. From such a contributor, this is inexcusable. It deserves a ban." (emphasis mine)

I hope it makes it clear how neutral the article and the editor is perceived to be. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are not required to be neutral; FPaS's opinion as to whether DS deserves a ban isn't relevant to whether this particular article should be deleted or not. NE Ent 16:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors are not required to be neutral" —— what are you saying? Kindly follow that link, you'll see that it is an evaluation of the neutrality of the article essentially. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and MrT, a redundant article also. None of the incidents covered are considered as pogroms in general .-sarvajna (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename to Persecution of Muslims in India or Anti-Muslim violence in India. None of the incidents referred to in the article, are considered as "pogrom" by majority of the sources. Shovon (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shovon76! Your opinion is confusing. "Delete" means to delete the article and "Rename" means to Keep the article but under a different name. Your vote is as good as neutral. Do you want to choose one side? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect intended, but it is for the closing administrator to interpret !votes, not for you - declaring a !vote as neutral does not make it so. Putting my admin hat on, I read this as "Delete, but if it's kept we should rename it to X..." - a perfectly reasonable position, honestly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not forcing Shovon to choose either side. I am asking him if he wants to. People do come and put "neutral" as their vote or simply comment on AfDs and thats absolutely fine. I am not trying to act as admin either. I simply found it confusing and hence pointed it so that he may clarify it if he wishes to. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite a separate debate whether or not we need a separate article dealing with only anti-Muslim violence when there is an article about Religious violence in India. If that is the case then majority of the content in "Religious violence in India" may support another article about anti-Hindu violence, I think these would further complicate matters. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be anti-Hindu violence, but it is not as notable as persecution of Muslims in India. Also, unlike Muslims, Hindus are not a minority. Mar4d (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then create an article about anti-Hindu violence in Indian Subcontinent? You verbosely talk about "pogroms", "persecution" of minorities in India? Are you from India? Nope. Then why are you inclined on framing riots as "pogroms"? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The persecution of Muslims in India is a very notable topic that has extensive coverage. It is a well-documented subject and deserves an article. If there is contention over the naming of this article, a solution would be to propose a rename. Nominating for deletion appears to be an attempt of censorship, and Wikipedia is not censored. Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of censorship are not the best way to convince other editors of anything. Please comment on content, not on the motivations of other editors. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very first line of nomination states that we already have a article that you very lovely care about. There is no censorship here. But keeping two articles is surely forking. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...And there's nothing wrong with FORKing, if done properly. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles, this one or the one already present, are written properly, they should only briefly be talking about various events as these events have their own separate articles. So if there is going to be only brief writing of few lines, why should there be two such briefs; one with a neutral title and another with a opinionated one? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good question - but note that I never said this was a good fork, just that being a fork or an attempted fork is not in and of itself a reason to delete anything. Especially if the flaws are fixable through normal editing. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like OR to me. The designation of "pogroms" in the cited references (only a few appear to actually use that word) doesn't appear to be central and all this probably fits better under Religious violence in India. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of the WP:OR nature of the article, it is worthwhile looking at the very first sentence in the article. Reference 1, for example, cited in support of "states tacit approval" is a book by Barbara Metcalf. ~~The book makes no mention of pogroms whatsoever.~~ The cited page makes no mention of state approval for violence against muslims, ~~let alone pogroms against them.~~ What it does say is that the Babri Masjid controversy was fueled in part by the "connivance of government officials". That is a far cry from violence, let alone pogroms. --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are wrong, the source does say pograms, "followed by anti muslim pograms in bombay and elsewhere in 2002 a second pogram was unleashed in Gujarat" Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was wrong and the source does say pogroms. However, the usage is incidental and nowhere in the source does it say that these anti-Muslim riots were with tacit state support. That these were pogroms is a fringe view that best fits elsewhere, perhaps in Religious violence in India. --regentspark (comment) 20:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Anti-Muslim violence in India. Ignoring whatever kind of intent may have been behind the article's creation, there are enough reliable sources to establish the subject itself as notable. The alleged POV (I say alleged because I haven't delved into the issue yet) of how the article is phrased is a basis for rewriting parts, but WP:NPOV breaches on a notable topic aren't grounds for deletion. As for inclusion in the main article on religious violence or whatever in India, then it's quite long and detailed, but this article already has a healthy amount of sources and information and as such can stand on its own. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Re those saying these incidents are not usually called pograms, please read The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" Which obviously says otherwise. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to religious violence in India (or delete). No need to duplicate the coverage of the existing articles with yet another one picking out just one victim group, and the existing article is so problematic in terms of POV, distorted quotes, bad title and general tendentious writing style that it's not really worth trying to turn it into something useful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Quite good article, referenced. It's about the role of BJP. not about a country, and these are facts. Why decreasing Wikipedia's coverage of Minorities? Fai zan 09:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's about the role of BJP. not about a country" —

nope, this is about India the article name is "Anti-Muslim pogroms in India", not "Anti-Muslim pogroms by BJP" and
"these are facts" —

wrong, these are quite far from "facts". Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"BJP" an Indian party right? The pogroms are held in India, therefore the title justs manifests it. Fai zan 11:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how the heck is it more about BJP and less about India??? None of what you say makes any sense, and the question of whether it's about BJP or India as a whole is not relevant anyway. The title allows for "anti-Muslim pogroms in India". There is nothing in the article that vindicates the equation of typical riots with "pogroms". These are personal opinions made by only a handful of people, backed by cherry-picked sources from a large number of references which don't, as a whole, refer to the incidents as "pogrom", there is no ambiguity there. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 12:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source in the article, as well as many hundreds of others call these incidents pogroms, as you already know as I already pointed that out to you at the MFD for the template of the same name. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, "pogrom" indicates systematic official action, no evidence in sources for the same. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the sources which say otherwise you mean? on Bombay, "nine days of anti muslim pograms (sic) sanctioned by the Bombay police" Freedom in the World 1993-94: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties 1993-1994 p47 On Gujarat, "The 2002 pogrom took place with the full approval of Gujarat's State Government" State Terrorism: Torture, Extra-judicial Killings, and Forced Disappearances p191. Along with the sources in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the source doesn't know how to even spell "pogrom", that raises the chances that they are using the word imprecisely. Again, we have had a big debate about the culpability of then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi at Talk:Narendra Modi and as it seems there were no charges filed against him and that was after years of Investigation by Supreme Court Appointed Team, we can't just ignore that and label the riot a "pogrom" anyway.
These allegations against the government are proved baseless.[36][37] Even the UK has changed its stance[38] after his exoneration.
In the aftermath of the Gujarat riot, a good many rioters (mostly Hindus) were punished (sentenced to life in prison). Hence, they weren't acting with "impunity", the government didn't connive at the crimes, but partisan sources with hidden or not so hidden agenda can claim otherwise. Go consult Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington for more. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If your best argument is picking up on my typos then why bother to respond to you? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^[39]What typo??? "pogram" misspelling was inside quotation marks succeeded by sic. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That typo is mine. Which should be obvious from my previous comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This is original research.--A (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were in the article is any OR? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The particular cherry-picking of a few specific references that happen to use the word "pogrom" to support the viewpoint that these were "pogroms," when the majority of references do not refer to them as such.--A (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Thousands of sources both academic and from the MSM calling these incidents pogroms, yet I am "cherry picking the few that do". Right. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DS, what is a pogrom? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss definitions, go look it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't your so-called-academic sources defined it before using it? Our Wikipedia article seems to define it in relation with Jews and government's approval. Both seem to be not applicable here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Thousands of sources both academic and from the MSM calling these incidents pogroms, yet I am "cherry picking the few that do". Darkness Shines, where are the so called "thousands of sources"? Shovon (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Political Logic of Ethnic Violence: The Anti-Muslim Pogrom in Gujarat, 2002 "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom” that the Sangh Parivar planned and executed—with support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in the state" What does that tell you? I have posted plenty of sources both here at at the MFD for category of the same name, a quick google will show you how many sources call Gujarat a pogrom. Same wit hother incidents. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All your sources taken together do not add up to "thousands"!!! Shovon (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is more than adequate, "Like its predecessors, the anti-Muslim violence was termed a “pogrom”" obviously it is termed as a pogrom. If you expect me to post thousands of sources think again. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you frame India as a sponsor of State terrorism, that too based on opinion of one person? Is it a joke to you? I think it's the most biased article I have ever come across. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems well sourced. The term pogrom seems applicable enough; it has a fairly wide meaning now. The events are facts, no? 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrT, I have no idea what you are on about, a historian has said these pogroms are a new form of state terrorism, I am not framing India as anything. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A historian doesn’t decide on whether a act is terrorism or not. He might opine on whether it is terrorism or not. A judicial system decides on whether it is terrorism or not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sort of outdated, prejudicial personal commentaries became even more irrelevant after the Supreme Court appointed investigative team's report was put forward. That accusation was a personal perspective of the "author" and what he thought was going on. He thinks India is a sponsor of "state terrorism". The whole book makes mentions of the word "pogrom" in context of '02 Gujarat violence but the point to be noted here is that in 2006, when the book was published, most of the poignant discoveries about the Gujarat riot case were not readily available, much less accessible to common public. Later it was deemed that that crime was not incited by the Government nor was it an act of terrorism. "Terrorist", that is an obnoxiously biased label one could bestow on anybody basing on prejudicial allegations. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is abhorrent that people play word games with such sad incidents.
I don't know much but I think "terrorists" don't provide relief efforts in the aftermath of acts of terrorism, an amount of 150,000 ₹ was paid by the government to the next of kin of each person killed along with other compensations for physical injuries and property losses.^[40]
Update:Furthermore, it was announced that the centre would pay ₹700,000 ex gratia to each of the victims.^[41] Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The High Court of Gujarat has issued a contempt notice to the Indian state's government for not paying compensation to victims of the deadly 2002 riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so? Almost a 1000 lost their lives. 56 shop owners claimed they didn't receive payments. Their applications for compensation were dismissed in august 2011.^[42] That's a shameful bureaucratic discrepancy at best. But what are you trying to imply, it's a premeditated negligence? BTW, there is a BIG difference between "terrorism" and "negligence" which you don't seem to get yet. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of payment or non-payment of compensation, you need to prove that this terrorism was done by government and not just believed to be done by some random people who have money and time to print books. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will go with the scholars who you denigrate as "random people" and the academic publishers you seem to think are self published over the opinions of Wiki editors. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your so called scholars and academics are opining and not stating with proofs that these are pogroms. They can call it pogrom or apple. But the fact remains that they have no authority to declare that these acts are done by government. They can only opine that these are done by government, but only judicial system can have the last word on government's involvement. Unless that happens, these scholars are simply writing fiction. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, after all their research counts for nothing does it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What research? Do you mean private investigation? What makes you think that their private "research" as you call it, is more credible than the Verdict presented by a Judiciary committee in a Court of Law basing on the findings of a Supreme court appointed investigative body which were supported by years of investigation and literally thousands of testimonies? Where is your mind these-days? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You really do not know what Academic research is? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you dont get that any amount of academic research of any superior quality cannot replace a judicial decision. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the fuss is about the article is very well referenced and contain many mentions of pogroms and hence is a reliable article as for the religious violence in India article that article does not contain sufficient coverage of such incidents and so using A10 as an excuse is baseless at best furthermore pogroms are not necessarily defined as events condoned or actively initiated by the state the definition includes destruction of property and an inability of the state to act appropriately hence this article is valid. I understand many nationalist views are being expressed in order for a delete of the article but this is article which is justified and relevant and nationalist sentiments should not come in the way it would be a shame if this article was censored for ridiculous and unclear arguments. RameshJain9 (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I have gone through the references they all seem reliable to me and they are reputable sources and they do mention pogroms so I cannot see how this is cherry picked? if that is the case half the articles on wikipedia would need an AFD that argument is flawed at best RameshJain9 (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— RameshJain9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The article looks well sourced. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any reason behind the existence of this article. All the contents are already present in Persecution of Muslims#India, Religious violence in India and a few more articles. If any further addition is required, it can be added in those relevant articles.--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; does not contain any content that is not covered in other articles.--Laun chba ller 11:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable well-sourced topic; needs expanding to cover pre-partition atrocities. 188.222.98.201 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)— 188.222.98.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: per discussions above. This article has all the necessary ingredients of a coatrack or a scorn-worthy pov fork. I don't wish to get involved in the discussions, so spare me! Brendon is here 10:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as per discussions above especially well explained by User:Mrt3366 in the beginning. Also The word pogrom - means state sponsored or officially encouraged massacre - [43] - so the article title is mischievous and misleading. Without going into much discussions, this as said above by User:Brendon111 is a scorn-worthy pov fork and I also don't wish to get involved in the discussions, so spare me too!! Jethwarp (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pogrom is no longer limited to attacks on Jews but covers attacks of various types. For example the attacks on Armenians in Baku in the early 1990s are generally referred to as pogroms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro to the article on Pogroms we have this statement "Pogroms against non-Jews include the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom against Igbos in southern Nigeria, the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom against Greeks, the 1920 Shusha pogrom, the 1988 Sumgait pogrom and the Kirovabad pogrom, in which ethnic Armenians were targeted." There is also an article on the Pogrom against the Armenians in Baku. The section in the article on Pogroms on Pogroms against other ethnic groups mentions a lot of other things. The claim that pogroms must be against Jews ignores what we say in the article on the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've read the arguments presented above incorrectly. I think the issue is not at all whether it is Jews getting killed or Muslims. I know the scope of "pogrom" has widened in terms of religious orientation.
But here it is about the connivance or complicity of the state government which is not well demonstrated. Yes, Muslims have been killed in India, so have Hindus, Christians, Buddhists in various parts of South-Asia. And the dreadful incidents mentioned herein were not state-sanctioned, that's why the vast preponderance of the sources don't call these as "pogroms", whichever sources do still label it as pogroms either are partisan sources or do it just to embellish their posts without providing any ironclad basis to justify the use. How could they justify it esp. when the court of law, after checking hundreds of testimonies and years of investigation, have punished the perpetrators and reached the conclusion that it was not pogrom? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even those arguing for deletion admit that pogrom is used by sources they claim do not support the article. It seems people want to impose a much narrower and more stringent definition on the term "pogrom" than is actually used in the sources. For example with the 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom there is no clear evidence of state support, so I see even less reason to insist on such for the Indian article. The idea that pogroms need clear state support is not held to in the actual use of the term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom has only one source, a poorly written article, obviously nobody paid much attention to the name. But google does return a whopping 160,000 hits for "anti-Igbo pogrom".

You're basically trying to dilute the meaning to a level where the word loses all its unique venom. It makes me wonder why? a Pogrom is a "mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities."[44] Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There might be an argument for a name like Anti-Muslim riots in India or Anti-Muslims massacres in India, but the things covered here are clearly more specific than generalized "violence" and not well covered under that heading. Violence includes attacks carried out by one person against another person, the things here are always described as "massacre", "riot" or "pogrom", they are massive actions that involve a lot more than targeted or random kills and assaults.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common usage for all those incidents that are mentioned in this article is not pogrom. The whole article is built with using only those sources which calls these incidents as Pogroms.-sarvajna (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Mrt3366 and others. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV article using cherry picked sources. If we start having articles like this, next thing we know, we would be having articles like Anti Hindu massacres in Indian subcontinent, Anti Hindu violence in Indian subcontinent, Anti Hindu rape in Indian subcontinent, Anti Christian violence in Pakistan, Anti Hindu violence in Pakistan, Anti Hindu violence in Bangladesh, Anti minority violence in Pakistan, etc. If we want articles like that, even when many of these articles would be duplicating large amounts of content from other similar articles, with somewhat broader or narrower scopes, heck, we can keep this article too.OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr. T and because Persecution of Muslims and Religious violence in India can accurately cover subject material.Pectore^talk 05:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see subsequent sufficient improvements, my concerns satisfied. Fai zan 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Admin: This↑ user took his 'keep vote' back on 16:12, June 8, 2013(UTC). Since then there has not been much of a change with regards to the blatant issues mentioned above. This vote is just for the sake of increasing the head-count. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Quarterly

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

I see no independent sources that might demonstrate the notability of this entity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources, not listed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this journal listed in selective databases; no coverage from independent sources; nothing to indicate this meets the criteria for WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Discount Outlet

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

Local hardware store, with trivial newspaper references. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN shop in Liverpool. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A shop that is part of Liverpool heritage,it must be somewhat notable or the BBC wouldn't bother writing about it Link thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC), Also it featured as part of BBC programme The Apprentice Kelvin 101 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to the BBC and Liverpool Echo articles. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 21:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it might be a small article but like all articles they grow overtime and that can only happen if people have the opportunity to be able to edit them. Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Drill commands#United States. SarahStierch (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ten-hut

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

To me this is an obvious dictionary definition and does not deserve an article on its own. Perhaps Marching in the United States armed forces would be a plausible article. Shii (tock) 04:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Lfdder (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure dicdef as stated. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicfef. Intothat darkness 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drill commands#United States. Perfectly useful search term. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Grandmartin1. Ten-hut and tech-hut are listed as alternate forms of Attention. Cnilep (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Brendon is here 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refracktion

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Non-notable WP:ORG. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. GNews and GBooks have zero hits for this environmental group. There are a handful of hits on Google, mostly to social media and blogs. The group's only apparent claim to fame is a successful complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority. Pburka (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are lots of media references to this group — even including the BBC! There are already a couple on the article. I will add others. This is a ludicrous Afd. --Klein zach 04:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contrary to Pburka's suggestion, it is simply not true that Gnews has zero hits for a search for Refracktion. The BBC has given coverage which suggests that this group is becoming influential -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22284340 - The subject with which this group is involved is politically contentious in UK and this AFD may be motivated more by a desire to remove internet references to the embarrassing ASA decision, which can be accessed here http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2013/4/Cuadrilla-Resources-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_203806.aspx . The Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuadrilla_Resources also references this group. Agree that this is a ludicrous Afd. -Pac greywolf (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Pac greywolf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Pac greywolf. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read through the guidelines for notability and consider that the concerns have been addressed, there has been sufficient recognition by independent sources, particularly relevant is the group having national exposure through the BBC. ragamalait 8 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragamalait (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 June 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pburka has tagged Ragamalait as a single purpose account, despite the latter's work on another article. I've removed the tag and asked Ragamalait to respond. He doesn't seem to be at all active, but that doesn't mean he/she is an SPA. In stead of attacking other editors, Pburka should explain how he came to propose this Afd immediately after I'd created the article. What is your interest in the article? Anything to do with Canadian diplomat Afds? --Klein zach 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and I may disagree on notability of diplomats, but I don't think I've ever questioned your good faith, and at no point have I attacked other editors. I politely request that you withdraw that accusation. I saw a new article created, examined it, and determined that it wasn't a notable organization based on a Google search. Contrary to Pac greywolf's claim, there really are no GNews hits. There are only a handful of passing references to this organization, and they're all about one, minor event. Ragamalait has edited exactly two pages, including this one, in the three years that the account has existed. I don't think it's a stretch to describe that account as a SPA. Pburka (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SPA means single purpose account, not 'few purposes account'. It wasn't responsible to put the tag on Ragamalait's comment. I am pleased Pburka came here via some notfication(?) of newly created articles, rather than my contributions list. However I am surprised he should be asking for the deletion of an article which has been referenced with major media sources, when in the past he has consistently argued for keeping articles on the basis of references in local publications and primary sources. Why the change in approach here Klein zach 00:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion above. Brendon is here 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Belgrade Faculty of Political Sciences

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

Non-notable academic unit. No claim of notability and no independent refs. Neither translation has obvious independent refs (I can't read the languages so don't know whether there's a claim of notability). Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Withdraw nomination as per ref found by No such user, this and this, and also this RSS feed. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of independent notability of this faculty so does not meet Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the major faculty of the country's biggest university. I don't think that anyone above followed WP:BEFORE. If you take a glance at its History section, there is an explanation that it was the major political faculty in former Yugoslavia. I'm not sure what kind of references you expect for an university article, because they're not frequently written about (thus, most information about them is on their own web site), but just a brief search in Cyrillic on Google Books gives 2880 hits of the faculty, and even more in Latin (which also includes false positives about other FPN's in ex-Yu). No such user (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure what kind of references you expect for an university article, because they're not frequently written about [...]" is exactly why most faculty have trouble meeting the WP:GNG. Look for newspaper coverage of anniversaries, restructurings and similar, which is where most faculty that make the grade get their sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, their 40th aniversary was held in the hall of the National Assembly, and was sponsored by the President: Radio Television of Serbia Google Translate. No such user (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain We often keep articles for the first order divisions of a major university, e.g. Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, on the grounds that they are at least partially autonomous, that the amount of material needs subdivision, and that for something as important as this, references are available. . On the other hand, we almost never keep articles for the subject departments within such schools, unless they are one or the 3 or 4 internationally famous ones where unmistakably good references are available--that's a case where the effective criterion is not notable, but famous. However, this university, like some other European universities, is divided in the first order into subject faculties--31 of them. These would not be autonomous to the degree of the Harvard GSAS, but more so than the department of political science in the Harvard GSAS. If we go entirely by the GNG, we will get essentially random results depending on who wants to work on it--for any university about which a full history is written, I can probably find a chapter or a large part of one on each individual department, for any department with enough really famous graduates, I can probably find substantial material about the department in their biographies. and I'm aware of academic history articles discussing quite a few individual academic departments. It will depend on whether someone is motivated to do the work. This is a case where I think we need to favor consistency over the GNG, and fortunately, we can make our own rules. I could equally well argue in either direction. In the past I've argued for a policy of restraint, to discourage the production of thousands of basically trivial articles that just manage to find enough sources. That's still a good argument. On the other hand, a comprehensive encyclopedia could do better, and with the spread of education projects in universities, these sorts of topics would be very good possibilities for articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.E.

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

WP:N not established; all third-party sources are dead links. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links have been fixed. all links are now active — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsledge87 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 08:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep? Perhaps there is something beyond the GNG that would apply here, but provided sources do appear to meet NOTE. Judging by the nom, it appears there was no BEFORE and the AfD was really a request for link cleanup anyway. So it looks like a speedy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable musician, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Messick

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

Speedy-A7 declined, due to his having won first place at a festival. The article appears to be autobiographical, and fails WP:BASIC, WP:BLP!E, and WP:GNG. Ignatz mice•talk 11:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 08:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND; all I could find was this article, which might constitute significant coverage but I don't think it's enough on its own. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdw ^talk 02:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Butzine

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

Non notable author of two self-published books,each of them in exactly one library, according to WorldCat. No reliable sources for notability , and likely never to be. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a few press releases, a local piece [45], a social networking presence, but I'm unable to find evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Gong show 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I found the same things that Gongshow did and came to the same conclusions: she just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this person meets any of the biographical notability criteria, as author, in business or whatever. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Running Man episodes. SarahStierch (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Running Man: Monday Couple episodes

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

Not suitable for Wikipedia as per WP:NOT: Detailed descriptions of on-screen actions and timing of television characters. Aman329 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aman329 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aman329 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aman329 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Sawol (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why a list of episodes is not encyclopedic. I am sure there are other lists of episodes around separate from the main article. ~~I would suggest a keep or merge rather than delete.~~ OK a subset does not seem so useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Not an official list of episodes (see List of Running Man episodes), but a subset list of episodes following the relationship of two members - with timestamps. Funny ^Pika! 12:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Running Man episodes Dream Focus 01:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tracy Beaker series characters. Mkdw ^talk 01:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Kettle (Tracy Beaker Returns)

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

It seems this is the only character from Tracy Beaker Returns to have her own article whilst the rest direct to List of Tracy Beaker series characters, The list goes in to great detail about all characters so IMO this article's a repeat of what's here –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 1 June 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of characters, as seems typical with other characters from this series. If there were more sources or more information to add, you might have an argument to WP:FORK - but no so much when this just duplicates the character list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Tracy Beaker series characters. Odd that a supporting character has her own Wikipedia page while the titular character doesn't. Not to mention, Lily Kettle on its own is a redirect to her character on List of Tracy Beaker series characters, but if you add the (Tracy Beaker Returns) to it, you get a whole new page. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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