Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PythonTurtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completing nomination on behalf of 121.75.246.79, who posted a request at WT:AFD. Their rationale is posted verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PythonTurtle doesn't seem to meet any of the notability requirements. 121.75.246.79 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm not seeing a lot of interest in this; mostly I find myself wading through various downloads for it. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability, or perhaps it's so deeply hidden that one can't easily find it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Is there a difference between "pythonturtle" and "python turtle"? If there isn't, GNG seems trivial. However, demonstrating one way or the other seems oddly difficult. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be two different things meant by python turtle. The first is the LOGO-like programming environ mentioned in the article. The second is given by the turtle python/Tk module. This is a graphics module with no development environ associated with it, just an API. --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 9 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) 23:20, 9 May 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. Mkdw^talk 01:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Gladden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

College basketball player does not meet the WP notability standard for athletes - see WP:NBASKETBALL, which requires at least one game in a major professional sports league or a very high draft pick in the national league to establish notability. College basketball players' notability guidelines are at WP:NCOLLATH, and Gladden also fails here, as there is little to no national media attention as required by the guideline. (In fact, other than reports of her death, there is little media coverage at all). Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The EuroCup Women, in which she has participated for several years, is such a competition. Please do at least a bit of research before nominating an article. You've already edited your rationale five four times after nominating the article, which is quite a hint you haven't done that. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From what I can gather, the Eurocup is a second tier competition and participation therein would therefore would not generally meet WP notability standards. As far as exposure and national media coverage goes, I think a simple Google news search almost speaks for itself here. The amount of editing of my nomination is irrelevant, since this is a question of notability as per WP guidelines, not how well one can draft a nomination. Note also that I have not made changes to the nomination rationale after anyone commented on it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First, your nomination was solely based on her high school career, then on her college career. So you were still ignoring the teams listed in the infobox and the external links of the article. If you don't take into account the teams she had played for in recent years, that just is a poorly executed nomination. Second, yes it is a second tier competion, but on European level, in which only those teams can participate that have won their respective national championship or that have placed among the top teams of the best national leagues in Europe. Another supranational league Gladden (as a member of the Partizan squad) had participated in is the MŽRKL, which they won that year. Many of Gladden's former team mates play for their respective national teams, and some already are covered by Wikipedia articles. Also note that the EuroCup is played during the WNBA off season, and many WNBA players take part in it as well. Concerning news - well, if the level of competition she has played in is high enough, I don't see that as a problem, as long as there is the possibility for proper verification. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Observation: I can't find a single WP article for any player whose highest level of competition is the Eurocup Women. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even at more than 4 million articles, there still are areas of interest that are largely uncovered by Wikipedia yet, so that in itself doesn't tell you anything. Expansion always has to start somewhere. If someone plays with and against national team members and WNBA players (i.e., those who play at the highest competition level possible in women's basketball) on a regular basis, I don't see the inherent difference between her and them concerning notability. A pan-European competition isn't comparable to high school or college basketball with its big spreads of skill levels. While being part of the country's biggest multi sports club (as in the case of Partizan Belgrade) certainly helps a bit, these teams aren't funded by major institutions like universities, so teams not performing at "major professional" levels usually couldn't even afford travelling through Europe for just one game each. --78.53.134.187 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have valid points, but they aren't in line with the current policy. Even factoring in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in my personal opinion, her achievements aren't encyclopedically notable. Transcendence (talk) 23:59, 8 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 · · 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. Transcendence (talk) 23:56, 8 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) 23:09, 9 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, LFaraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, the nominator is correct in pointing that the subject fails the letter of the NBASKETBALL guideline, but in my view EuroCup Women is an international competition even more important/significant than a national championship and still reflects the spirit of the guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 05:07, 17 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Conigliaro (mixologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article links to very few other articles and makes no attempt to establish notability. I move for its deletion. SteelMariner^Talk 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The current version of the article is dreadful, and I would suggest it be revered back to a non promotional version like this one from the history. Articles like [1], [2], [3] demonstrate that he is a notable bartender / mixologist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though the version you cited looks better, the point below still applies, which is that there is no notability here. It is a page about a bartender that lists several non-notable awards and makes several uncited claims to notability. SteelMariner^Talk 12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't see any way that he meets the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Unless we can come up with some other criteria for establishing the notability of bartenders (something the Bartending Task Force never managed to develop), I don't think this passes muster. Ibadibam (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, per Whpq (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. Of those articles linked above, only the first and second are what we usually consider a reliable source, and by my reading of WP:NOTE, they don't really give him significant coverage in a way that demonstrates long-term notability. Is there something I'm missing? Ibadibam (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's wrong with the third source? Luxury lifestyle magazines may not be of interest to the average person, but that the site has an editorial board. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, my mistake. I didn't notice it was a magazine. My above comments still stand, though: could someone actually explain which notability criteria are met by this individual? Ibadibam (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as established through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I picked out three sources of the ones I found quickly. I feel these sources fit the guidelines. The third source is a full profile where he is the primary topic. The first and second sources do not feature him as the primary topic, but the coverage not a passing mention, and sufficient for me to say that it represents significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm going to say that notability per WP:GNG (via WP:BASIC) is arguable. There's not really any depth to any of these sources, and there's nothing that provides evidence of real notability. A lot of shopowners, chefs and bartenders get written up as part of lifestyle/dining guides, and there's been no consensus to date as to whether that's enough to establish notability. (If he had made an enduring contribution to mixology this would be a lot more clear-cut — cf. Victor Vaughn Morris.) Perhaps it would be safe to let the article stand, cut out all the fluff, and reassess it later per WP:NTEMP if enduring notability can't be established. In the meantime, I'll stick some article message templates on it to pinpoint some of the issues. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 16 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, LFaraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - After snorting through the multiple independent published sources cited above, it seems that this subject does pass GNG. Not a rousing pass, but a pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 17 May 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 Regular Show characters.  Frank  |  talk  12:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pops Maellard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable recurring character. — Confession0791 ^talk 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Where do we even start here? No sources so it fails WP:V, no indication of why it's notable so it fails WP:GNG, it's written pretty crudely... I could go on and on, but the most important issue is the notability and verifiability. Nothing I see establishes it as being worth an article. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hugely strong delete – No attempt to establish notability, might even be some made-up character. ^King Jakob _C2 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Regular Show characters. There is no coverage about this fictional character to establish that a separate article is required. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and precedent. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 16:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you against redirecting to the list article where there is an entry for this character? -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Whpq. I note that all the other delete !votes here are non-policy-based, because WP:ATD clearly prefers a relevant redirect to an outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This article and List_of_Regular_Show_characters appear to contain copyvio from [4]. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can fix the copyvio on List of Regular Show characters, just redirect this article to there. — Confession0791 ^talk 03:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Internet Movie Database link is user-submitted and very likely a {{Backwardscopy}}. Most of the entries read like Wikipedia leads, so I examined the histories of Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson. I spot-checked revisions prior to the list's creation on September 10, 2011, and found that the text had existed on Wikipedia for over a month. List of Regular Show characters was split from Regular Show by User:Temastok (removal, cross-page diff). The second expansion by 80.98.24.185 came from the Pops article on the Regular Show Wikia. The Wikia page and List of Regular Show characters have similarities – I suspect copying in at least one direction – so it's not obvious which is the true source of the first expansion. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unattributed and unusable content from Wikia and redirect. Please also semi-protect to prevent 80.98.24.185 from recreating by pasting from somewhere (twice on this article and once on Ice King). Wikia is compatibly licensed CC-By-SA, so the text theoretically could be used if desired, but any content appropriate for Wikipedia is already in List of Regular Show characters. There's nothing here to justify repairing the attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventure Time main characters have enough information for stand alone articles, and I just recently improved the Ice King article. The main Regular Show characters do not – and certainly not a recurring character like Pops. — Confession0791 ^talk 13:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that 80.98.24.185 has a habit of pasting from unidentified sources, creating work in identifying them, attributing their authors, and potentially removing copyvio. I have no opinion on Ice King as a separate article. The text in Ice King appears to come from List of Adventure Time characters. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect any and all Regular Show characters to List of Regular Show characters. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott (thief) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Scott fails to pass WP:CRIMINAL and WP:GNG. If anything this seems like a news bit best set for Wikinews. Albacore (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is this a serious nomination? He had his obituary published in the Daily Telegraph and The Guardian for starters! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep obituaries in 2 major national newspappers. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above, and also coverage of his death by New York magazine [5], and here's an article from The Independent in 1998 about his 1998 sentencing [6]. HighBeam has more (if only my subscription had not expired).[7] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep and move on.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 9 May 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. LFaraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muaythai Federation of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant independent coverage of this organization. All the coverage and links in the article are either to its own website or related organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only coverage I found for this organization was primary or insignificant. Astudent0 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems like this should be a notable organization with its affiliations to larger MT groups. However, notability is not inherited and the lack of significant independent coverage is what dictated my vote. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Two of the references are dead links and the rest are primary. Not to mention that this article has major issues with grammer and writing.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 05:04, 14 May 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 Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium. LFaraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godzillatron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notable - Regardless of having the multitude of 2006 sources from local papers, which unsurprisingly touted its shiny, new, greatness; it's a simply a video scoreboard that no longer is notably large or clear.

Even worse is the article's title which is declared as a nickname is not referenced anywhere nor does it apply only to the video scoreboard at Texas Stadium. It is a generic term for this years' HUGE new scoreboard somewhere. KelleyCook (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, perhaps without a redirect, to Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium, where this information, and its sources, appropriately belongs. Deletion would not be the right result: the scoreboard may not deserve a separate article but it's a significant component of the stadium. Some of the cited articles do appear to use the "Godzillatron" name, but I don't see any particular need for a redirect, as long as we take the necessary steps to maintain the article history for attribution purposes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge without redirect per Arxiloxos, and per WP:UNDUE. The stadium article has a lot about its development and renovations, but not a lot about the screen, which the paper sources could probably help with - bearing in mind it should be stripped down so it doesn't give undue weight to that part of the article. I don't see a redirect being necessary, either; chances are the term "Godzillatron" is going to get passed around every few years or so. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 May 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 please. Shii (tock) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a supposedly a new martial arts style, but I can only find one school that teaches it. Everything seems to link back to one D.C. school run by the founder. I found no significant independent coverage. One of the article's sources mentions jujutsu, but doesn't specifically mention this style at all.Mdtemp (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This martial art is significant because it is being used by National Defense University and being taught to the U.S. Military there. It is part of the curriculum. There are no other schools who can claim this. And yes there is independent coverage in there and the founders bio is used because there is a lot of detail in there. Please make suggestions for improvement instead of flagging for deletion. 69.243.110.100 (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary sources have been added to this article. Emery80 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge into Dong Jin Kim The fact that courses in this art are taught does not show notability, regardless of where they're taught. The NDU is for military and civilians and is not concerned with preparing anyone for combat. The mere fact this course is taught does not show notability--note that it's part of an article that also discusses other new offerings at the gym such as a musical cardio class. T+here is nothing that shows this art meets WP:MANOTE or any other notability criteria to merit its own article. Astudent0 (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The NDU does prepare military for combat situations, further the Army Old Guard is there at Ft. McNair with them. NDU is a U.S. military university. Unlike other "offerings" students get academic credit for this. Being that my main interest is including a worthy art, the U.S. military, and the NDU, I don't terribly mind it being merged with Kim's, however my preference would be to keep both. Any suggestions on how they could be merged coherently? I think merging Kim into Jigo Tensin-Ryu would be the best if it had to be merged, but having seen comment on the other page some may argue it should be the other way around. Emery80 (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that I think there's little to show notability for this art. An art that appears to be taught by one instructor and lacks significant independent coverage doesn't seem notable by WP standards. As for my merging/redirect comment, I think it's much easier to make a case for Kim's notability than for this art which is why I voted the way I did on the two articles. According to the NDU website their mission is to be "focused on advanced joint education, leader development and scholarship", educate "members of the U.S. Armed Forces and select others in order to develop leaders that have the ability to operate and creatively think" and "foster and promote scholarly distinction in its work and its people". With a focus on getting a master's degree, it doesn't sound like hand to hand combat is an integral requirement and lots of schools offer martial arts classes as electives--it hardly shows notability. Astudent0 (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The secondary sources cited in the article either don't address Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu by name, discusses it in terms of an individual of a larger organization (specifically Mr. Stenson of the US Army as per the current #3 reference) or by the name of its inventor Dong Jin Kim (also up for AfD). The martial art itself doesn't appear to have been around very long (relatively speaking), been the subject of significant coverage, or practiced my multiple notable people and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Prior to this !vote I spent time on the article removing possible copyright violations and cleaning up instances where information was incorrectly cited, both in this article and Dong Jin Kim which I have also !voted delete in its AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TreyGeek there are a lot of significant people who practice this form of martial art...e.g. Scooter Libby, Tom Daschle, General Greg martin get s his Black Belt this month. BTW, thanks for erasing my pictures, that are NOT copy right infringements. Emery80 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TreyGeek went into Wikicomkons and tagged every photo of mine and tagged it possible copyright. Even though I own the photos...including ones for my job (law enforcement)and of my father...wow thanks pal, thanks for the attack!Emery80 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MANOTE a martial art is notable enough for an article if it meets certain criteria. I don't see how the subject meets any of those criteria. You suggest it passed item 3 (multiple notable practitioners) however none of those practitioners are directly cited with independent, secondary sources. Your conflict of interest over the subject is perhaps making you unbias in this case.

As for the images, if you really did take those photos, there is a procedure on Commons to verify you are the owner of those images. You are welcome to go through those procedures.

I'll also note that Emery has reverted my cleanup of the article. So there are specific web pages listed multiple times in the references section and references are being cited at the end of paragraphs which really don't backup the statements made in those paragraphs. With the merge of Jin Kim's article into this one (without proper attribution) it is a huge mess that I'm not going to attempt to clean up (again) until after the AfD is resolved. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TreyGeek, sorry for causing a mess. I was trying to get the photos back as I though they simple been deleted off the article. As for the photos in wikicommons, I do have the right to use them (that's what I meant by mine), however, I uploaded them inccorectly in terms of the permissions. I actually tried re upload them correctly today and put the right permissions on there, but the photos are now blocked. Sorry for accusing you of attack earlier. I was heated up because you erased a photo of my father earlier on wikicommons and it got me heated up. That being said, I appreciate your help in making this article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I see the side of Astudent0 and I have merged the two pages (Dong Jin Kim into Jigo Tensin Ryu). Thank you for the suggestions :)

Emery80 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD discussions are not a vote per say but generally speaking there should be on vote per commenter. Emery - its not helpful to use words like attack instead of fixing the problem. Copyright is a big deal on Wikipedia for very obvious reasons. With respect to the merge in my opinion the art should be merged into the man (ie. the other way around) which is what Astudent0 originally suggested. As a single article (either way) I think there is enough to support a Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thank you for you comment, I understand on the issues and will work to resolve them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good - please also consider the changes TreyGeek made within the article vis a vis the references and such.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge As I stated on the Dong Jin Kim article discussion. I agree with Peter Rehse. Emery, I do NOT agree with you that this article should absorb Dong Jin Kim. It needs to be the other way around. Kim is one of the top Kendoka in the US interms of his experiece and teaching but his martial art is still developing. I do not meen any disrespect by saying that, as I have a lot of respect for DJK and the sport, but uising my almost 30 years of experience in martial arts and although I feel comfortable saying that although Jigo Tensin Ryu has a lot of potential, it is not yet at the level that wiki needs it to be. Please consider merging JTR into DJK, and make a section for JTR.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery, I also just cleaned up another article you worked on recently.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I am alright with merging them. Thank you for your input. I saw the other changes, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Dong Jin Kim. There is no doubt that this martial art does not meet any WP notability criteria (as others have already noted), so it only makes sense to merge into the article on the more notable founder. I must admit I think even his notability is borderline, but one thing at a time. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm not sure that the notability concerns have been adequately met but since Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu has recently been merged into this page I don't want to delete it without an updated discussion. As such, if anyone feels that the subject is still not notable I have no issues with it being re-nominated. J04n(talk page) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Jin Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. Almost all of sources are to his biography on his school's web site. As for claims of notability, teaching classes is not notable. Many instructors teach police and military. I don't think his kendo championship is enough to show notability on its own. Winning one national tournament for 50+ year olds doesn't seem enough to me, but others may disagree.Mdtemp (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This individual created a martial art that is used at the National Defense University and being taught to the U.S. Military there. It is part of the curriculum. He is not listed here because he "he teaches classes." He is listed because he has a National Championship. Kim has only been in the United States as a U.S. Citizen for a few years and his "50 years" should not be taken into consideration. Mdtemp, I know you are a MMA fan but Kendo is important to a lot of people. His winning a National Champion ship, plus the fact he founded a martial arts style is why he is here. Subsequently, the style, Jigo-Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu also has an article. 69.243.110.100 (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although I study a different school of Kendo, Kim is considered one of the top practitioners and teachers of the sport here in the U.S. I would rather promote my school, but having this on here is good for the sport, especially here in the U.S. There are very few, if not any, practioners at his level here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.107.123 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, it's irrelevant whether or not an article is "good for the sport". I still don't think he quite meets the notability criteria, but he's much closer than his martial art.Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I argree you Mdtem. Please allow my to rephrase my comment as I think I misspoke. I believe he is of importance to the sport of kendo and therefore should be included as an article.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak Keep Technically, winning a U.S. championship (especially an age related one) may not strictly meet WP:MANOTE, but I can live with that. However, combined with the lack of independent sources this article does have some issues. I'd prefer to see some additional sources, but I don't really feel strongly about the article either way. Astudent0 (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astudent0, I see your point. His students are some of my biggest competitors so I dont want to sound too supportive....lol Maybe Emery can find some more sources for his Kim article. As i said its good for the sport here in the US.

• Delete I don't believe that being the winner of a senior's championship fulfills WP:MANOTE. I am unable to find much, if any, significant coverage on the subject thus appears to fail WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I went through the article and cleaned it up. A number of images uploaded to commons appears to be possible copyright violations from the subject's dojo's(?) website (or at the very least were given inaccurate attribution. So, I removed them and tagged them appropriately on Commons). It also seems a lot of the citations given to paragraphs didn't actually have the information being cited as far as I could tell, so those were removed. --TreyGeek (talk)

• still keepTreygeek thank you for helping clean up, however being at NDU those are my images. Also its a National Championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge I merged this page into Jigo Tensin Ryu.
• Keep As per the discussion in Jigo tensin Ryu, Jigo Tensin Ryu should be merged into this article and this article kept.Emery80 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery80 (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My related comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu suggest the opposite merge since it appears the man is more significant than the martial art.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, thanks, I will work with it later today. Emery80 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Emery, no disrespect, but I agree with Peter Rehse. Merge Jigo Tensin Ryu into Don Jin Kim. The man is more important than the art in terms of wiki. Kim is is one of the top kendōka in terms of his experience and training in the United States where as the martial art is still developing. Not to say it wont get there, but its not "there" yet for the level needed for these articles. As stated already by a few, I would suggest merging Jigo Tensin Ryu into DJK, putting JTR as a section and redirecting JTR to the DJK page. I also agree that the DJK page should be keep. I was not signed in when I made previos comments, but mine are unsigned under 69.243.107.123.

MartialArtsLEO (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery, I also just cleaned up another article you worked on recently that is unrelated. Not picking on you, just went to your edit history and noticed something that needed some clean up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense take, thank you for your help. I will take all that into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emery80 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emery80, I would also suggest you not accuse people of vandalism and ask they be banned from Wikipedia, as you did with me, unless you have evidence besides the fact they disagree with you.Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, please accept my apologies on that. I am new to this and didn't under stand what was going on. I appreciate your patience.Emery80 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As soon as the AFD is complete I will start the merge process of Jigo Tenin Ryu into this articleEmery80 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the Jigo Tensin Ryu article into this one as per the AfD on that article.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look good, thanks PeterEmery80 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 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. LFaraone 03:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Together (song by The xx) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not pass notability threshold; please add information to the article for the soundtrack. Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage to date seems limited to "Listen to the xx's new song from The Great Gatsby soundtrack" [8][9]. Not enough material for a standalone article; nor does it appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time.  Gong show 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per nominator's withdraw; see WP:SK#1. (Non-admin closure.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Booked Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unfortunately, this film does not meet WP:GNG and also WP:MOVIE. There are no independent sources and the only WP:RS found [10] was about the director (see article talk page) and is only a passing mention of the movie. Just not enough to even come close to notability. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the film has been reviewed by The Guardian as seen here. It was also reviewed by the Evening Standard as seen here. The Scotsman reviewed it here. Screen Daily covered the film's distribution here. What do you think, FoolMeOnce2Times? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I see the reviews. I am reluctant, as if we use reviews then just about every movie would qualify for an article. However, you seem to have more edits in this area. What does The Project say about using reviews as sources? Would be glad to withdraw if there has been a previous consensus about using reviews for movies. Let me know. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  We want to determine a topic's notability through reliable sources per WP:GNG. In this case, we want to use reviews published by reliable sources, such as the ones I mentioned above. This film actually had a lot of reviews from sources that would not be considered reliable, as seen here. (Though that is where I found the review by The Guardian as part of my research.) Check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot (2012 film), for example. There were a few reviews of that film as seen here, but none of them were considered reliable. Hope that kind of threshold makes sense. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Clear as mud. :) Let me make it simple (at least for me anyways)....would the project consider the sources you found good enough to meet the WP:RS guidelines for WP:GNG? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I believe they would. We have The Guardian, the Evening Standard, The Scotsman, and Screen Daily (not a review but did provide coverage). We tend to count print sources and what they publish on the web to be reliable. Web-only sources are questioned a little more. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Sorry, logged off before your last message. Hate to eat and sleep or something like that. Anyways, thanks for pointing this out to me. I am new and learning and now I know what the community thinks in regards to these references for movies. As such, I will withdraw the nomination. Sorry for the mistake. As far as the article, I came across it by trying to clean up tagged articles. I hate when people pull hit and runs with the ugly tags. and yes, I do understand that not everyone has the time to clean up articles and articles should not be punished for people not cleaning them up. It makes Wikipedia look like crap and makes it look unreliable. When I come across an article like this I like to clean it up if it is at all possible. That is why this was nominated as I could not locate the sources that I felt met the WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS guidelines. Anyways...I'm done venting. Thanks again for pointing out the error. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looking beyond present state (Thank you Erik) we can see the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:Notability (films) through commentary, coverage, and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WITHDRAW - Based on policy based reasoning pointed out above, I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Sorry for the time waster. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:36, 10 May 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. LFaraone 03:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debajyoti Mukhopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is not a single secondary reliable source for this article about a computer scientist. Added google scholar shows a maximum of 17 citations. [11] Solomon7968 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Actually claims 220 Scholar citations [here]. Per WP:ACADEMIC, falls short or at least WP:TOOSOON (given the many recently published papers claimed). Per WP:GNG, nothing noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete not notable. In addition, he would currently fail BLPPROD imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep-- borderline for WP:PROF

This is a good illustrations of a career which is notable by the standards of his own country but not necessarily internationally. He doesn't claim' 220 citations, he has them, but divided over a large number of articles with no one article getting more than 17. I'd extend him the courtesy of an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are very wrong to say notable by the standards of his own country. India has produced computer scientists like Raj Reddy, Rajeev Motwani, Manindra Agrawal, Ravi Sethi and numerous others. In total 1 Turing Award, 6 Godel Prize and numerous others who fuel the US economy. Solomon7968 (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my book Scholar citations are claims until verified. There are ways to double-count working papers and proceedings (thus a big issue for a computer scientist like this subject), such that the exact count needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Even if accurate, though, the count is too low to override WP:ACADEMIC in my reading; all the more since, as DGG, points out, no single piece stands out.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the GS list, and checked the most cited: only a few of the citations are by his group, but most are by outsiders. That's the usual potential problem. What other problem do you suggest? The list has the usual mix of papers and conferences for the subject. I consider GS valid unless there's something to contest--a number of peer-reviewed papers, (COI: a few but not most of them are by one of my former students), have shown the equal validity of its results with Scopus & WoS, tho GS are usually higher due to its wider scope of inclusion. Anyway, anybody can check them & see if the citations are noticeably affected by some of the non-scholarly work GS does include. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • You'd "extend him the courtesy of an article"? Have you asked this man whether he wants an article about himself here (never mind that asking him would be inappropriate)? Do you realize that this is an encyclopedia and not a kind of hall of fame or Who's Who? Have you considered that an encyclopedia article on a wiki may potentially develop negative information about its subject or information that a living person would generally not otherwise want to appear? 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His citation record is far below the level needed for WP:PROF#C1 (especially in CS, which is a relatively high-citation field) and I see no other signs of notability here. And as Solomon7968 says, India has both individuals and universities that rank among the best in the world in this subject, so I don't think arguments for applying lower standards to counter systemic bias hold any water in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable person. It should be deleted quickly. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete India is a significant part of the international scientific community, and the subject does not meet the standards for notability we apply to researchers generally, under WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 19:23, 13 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colmar Brunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Attempted to find sources for this one but just ended up with a few hundred passing mentions about surveys that have conducted. The company fails WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and there is also no WP:CORPDEPTH. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree that finding sourcing would be difficult given the number of poll results that turn up, but this is a major market and social research and polling company. The extent to which its polls are considered newsworthy (especially in NZ from what I've seen) goes a long way to establishing the firm's notability IMO. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do see that they are a rather large firm in the polling industry and believe that we can combine the multitude of passing mentions to potentially support notability. However, how do we support the content beyond them being who they are? The article is rather large for a company without any references to be found. I think beyond stating who they are with a simple sentence or two there is nothing to support the rest of the content. Thoughts? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From my personal knowledge of this firm (I've never worked for them and have no conflict of interest) all the material in the article appears correct, other than the claim that this is "Australia's largest independent market research agency" which is questionable. It's certainly among the largest. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that they are probably one of the largest independent market research agencies and notable in the real world, but for Wikipedia, our personal knowledge cannot be used as a WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:53, 17 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, LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article needs work, but from a few minutes on Google News I can see sources that go well beyond "Colmar Brunton poll says X". They include a scandal over tobacco polling, analysis of methods that suggest a right-wing bias, and reports on corporate deals and job cuts: New Zealand Herald[12], Stuff/Business Day[13], Stuff/Dominion Post[14], MRWeb[15], Voxy[16], Research (magazine of UK Market Research Society)[17] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable for function, but the type is not one to push the news outside of their polls, as seen above they do get some coverage, but anything necessary about key organization matters needs to come from records and business work that is rather specialized at this point. Pew Research Center is similarly in this boat on Wikipedia, despite being equally well established. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 18 May 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 per nominator withdrawal and no outstanding arguments for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Million Ways to Die in the West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · _Million_Ways_to_Die_in_the_West Stats)

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

Has not begun filming, fails WP:NFF. Editor also moved already existent redirect to an unnecessary new location in order to create this. It has happened before I'm gonna withdraw the AFD. I hope in the future Captain Assassin follows common practice the way I showed him on his talk page. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Filming has begun already and I'm going to add references and citations, so please wait. And other thing I moved because I'm starting the article, you just created the page and made redirection.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 17:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You create redirects in order to add content later, not move the redirect, thereby making another, unnecessary redirect. It also shows you to be sneaky and underhanded, since you did it as well with Transference.Rusted AutoParts 17:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transcendence not Transference, and I did yes I did, I added the contents to that too, but you snatched that from me by making loop of redirection.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 17:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You snatched it from me. I had that redirect created too. I had to have them deleted twice to revert your actions. It's called stealing in some places, but I'm claiming no ownership, just acknowledge what you're doing is wrong. Rusted AutoParts 17:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - at least, as it is for now. Let me throw out a quote here from WP:NFF -"Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." As it stands, this article does not meet that guideline at the moment. Unless any sources are added that show the production is notable and can be well-supported in the article writing, I'll move to delete and just say wait until we get a little closer to release time. That being said, if User:Captain Assassin! can make it happen in the next couple of days before this AFD closes, I might be inclined to change my mind. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 21:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix , yes according to policies it doesn't meet the guideline at the moment but I can show you hundreds of other articles like this, there are many others which have articles during filming. Leave filming I can show you the articles which are not started filming yet, some are in pre-production and some in planned project. And you know that this guideline works sometimes, I will add reliable sources in a couple of hours and I hope you'll be satisfied then. And you can also see in the sources that the film was set to be shoot in May/Spring, and now it is filming.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please provide as source that informs that filming has already begun? All I have found is reports on casting being under weigh. If filming has begun, I could support a keep. If not, I would support an incubation of the article and a redirect of the title to its director. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well done, it seems that notability has been established after all. Though I'm sure the sourcing is a little shoddy right now, there's enough to meet WP:NFF at this point. Captain Assassin!, however, I'd like to point out something very briefly for you to keep in mind in the future when you have to defend against someone's point of view in an AFD. Make sure to read WP:OCE, because just because there are other articles that are similar doesn't mean that any one article should be protected. What defines my decision in this case with a concern of notability was how it matched the policy on notability for an unreleased film, and I would say that it did not at first, but the additional sources have established that notability. Any of the hundreds of articles that have not established notability in a similar situation, I would nominate for deletion for lack of notability, but not under the presumption that we would never have an article on the film. Sometimes it's simply too soon. Best of luck as you continue to shape up this article, and happy editing. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 02:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As required by WP:NFF we now have confirmation of filming. From May 2, we learn in Women's Wear Daily that Amanda Seyfried "has just left Gallup, N.M., in her rearview mirror as she heads to Santa Fe to film her newest project, a comedy with Seth MacFarlane dubbed A Million Ways to Die in the West" and that the project is expected to take six weeks to complete.[18] Just hours ago it was announced in Daily Mail "the Big Love actress just began filming Seth MacFarlane's new comedy, A Million Ways to Die in the West, in New Mexico." (my underscore) Also required by WP:NFF's stating "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I find the shear wealth of sources about this production's planning and casting meet the primary notability guideline... IE: per guideline, the production is now determinable as notable enough for inclusion and, considering the principals involved, it will only gain more coverage. And yes, the article could benefit from expansion and use of the many available sources, yes... but (@Red Phoenix) as filming has commenced and the project-being-filmed has coverage enough to meet WP:GNG, that addressable issue is a reason to allow it remain and be improved overtime and through regular editing. In improving articles to serve the project and its readers, addressable issues are rarely cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the notability guidelines for future films. The threshold is the start of filming, and we have now verified that here. A stand-alone article is thus warranted. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schmidt. WP:NFF is indeed satisfied. Nymf _{talk to me} 18:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the notability guidelines for future films. As of today, A Million Ways to Die in the West has a release date in North America, May 30, 2014: Hollywood Reporter--Ahmad123987 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahmad123987, for what it's worth, an announced release date is not a good indicator of whether or not a film will be made. A studio can announce a release date but fail to get the film into production. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As noted by others, principal photography is now underway, so that's not an issue. Does it meet general notability guidelines? Given the director and cast, it's pretty certain that it does. Even if it does not at present, it obviously will. Deletion, only to have it re-created in another few months, is an exercise in futility. If this does come out as "delete" I hope the originating editor will be offered a chance to WP:USERFY it so work already done is not lost, and to facilitate bringing it back as an article, which will inevitably be done. TJRC (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has been fixed up, plus this a a notable film by now. Koala15 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Enough "keep" comments for now, I think. AFD should be closed for now as it is filming now, thanks to all for participating.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AFDs usually remain open for 7 days, and we do have one outstanding delete vote. However, it might be closed by an uninvolved person under WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:26, 11 May 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. LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lives of the Saints (unreleased film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The film is still in early development, probably in "development hell". The page states it started filming but the link it gives reference to only mentions the names of the people attached to it, nothing of it having started filming. Lady Lotus (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a sound example of a topic that does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. This from February 2011 mentions the director's desire to start filming Lives of the Saints later that month. There is no indication of actual production beyond that. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete . Topic currently fails WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. At best, this one is TOO SOON. If author wishes to continue work OUT of article space, fine. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - films in development hell are usually deleted here, sometimes citing WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 14 May 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 Esoteric programming language#Piet. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piet (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered and all that I could find in my own search are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:UNRELIABLE wikis and personal blogs, all unsuitable for establishing notability. Previous AfD in 2006 consisted of three WP:JUSTAVOTEs and two WP:ITSINTERESTINGs. I don't believe this subject can stand as a separate article under our guidelines but I would not object to merging this material back into Esoteric programming language#Piet. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I also did a search for some references, and ended up finding nothing more than the creator's own site. Although it seems that it should be merged back into Esoteric programming language#Piet instead of being deleted. CharmlessCoin (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I've seen some interest in the language in the blogs, but have not found multiple in-dpeth independent reliable sources. That the language exists is verifiable, and as one of the few (only?) color-based programming languages, it seems reasonable to include in the list of examples in Esoteric programming language. --Mark viking (talk) 21:11, 11 May 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. LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rigby Raccon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable character, misspelled anyway. — Confession0791 ^talk 16:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Regular Show characters as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mordecai Blue jay. Would help to create a redirect under the correct name too. Ansh666 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete completely. No known last name and "raccoon" misspelled. — Confession0791 ^talk 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but given someone made the page, it could conceivably be a valid search term? Let's see what others say. Ansh666 23:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no harm in keeping the redirect. Someone looking for "Ricky Raccon" will almost certainly be looking for the character anyway. Jafeluv (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and precedence. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 16:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but create a new page with the correct spelling as a redirect to List of Regular Show characters. I don't see any reason why this character should have its own article, but I'm guessing that fans of the show will still search for it, so we should point them to the right place. --Jpcase (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the redirect be Rigby raccoon per WP:TITLE, since he has no known last name. — Confession0791 ^talk 20:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I guess that would probably be a common search term, seeing as though the creator of this article decided to use it. I would suggest also doing one for Rigby (Regular Show). --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect already exists. [19] — Confession0791 ^talk 00:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Then yeah, I would just say delete this page and create Rigby Raccoon as a redirect. --Jpcase (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of Regular Show characters. This lacks significant secondary source converage in independent sources. It doesn't have enough content to justify a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no opinion on redirects. Rigby Raccon was split from List of Regular Show characters by User:Temastok (removal, cross-page diff). The split does not comply with WP:Splitting#How to properly split an article or WP:Copying within Wikipedia, and it must be repaired if not deleted. Since the text originates from the list (actually from Regular Show, prior to the split of the character list), there is nothing to merge back. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 13 May 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 soft delete. If someone believes the subject to be notable and is willing to rework the article I will userfy it to them upon request. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possible copyvio? Reads like a press release, little indication of independent notability nothing in the way of a solid secondary source establishing it. Created wholesale by User:Chendrix in 2007, who has edited no other articles in any substantial way. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - although she fails my tests for lawyers, she may pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE as an author. I found her books at Google Books, and several lengthy quotes in reliable news sources, so she appears to be legit. However, the article is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an odd comment. Nothing you say justifies your vote, unless being "legit" is a valid keep criterion. If I'm ever the defendant in a jury trial, please remind me not to hire you. If AFD is truly not a vote, I expect the closing admin to read this a "delete." 66.108.176.187 (talk) 10:00, 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, LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete at most borderline notable, and highly promotional -- almost a G11. An extensive article about someone of at borderline notability is almost also at attempt at promotion, and this seems a good example of that. The sources in Google News Archive are either merely mentioning her as being an attorney in a case, or consist of her own statements. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuaVay Nova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Looks promotional to me since the only person that has ever edited it, is the creator of the page. Koala15 (talk) 14:41, 9 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 9. Snotbot  t • c »  15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 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, LFaraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No coverage whatsoever in reliable, independent sources for this rapper. The first "reference" reports that his mixtape has had two, count 'em, two downloads. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 17 May 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. Soft delete. Undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MC Funky J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 14:37, 9 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 9. Snotbot  t • c »  14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 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, LFaraone 03:32, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:38, 18 May 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. Mkdw^talk 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calunod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another one that ought to be speedied. But there is context, and it's not pure nonsense... Ignatzmice•talk 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - well, it's very nearly nonsense. Deb (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - No coherent structure, little context, seems to be written partly in Phillipino --Mathnerd 101 _{What I have done} ^{What have I done?} 22:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense, failing WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - no notability whatsoever. Tagged as A7. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC) The article as it is can't be salvaged. It's just unencyclopedic stuff. I wouldn't object to it being recreated as a disambiguation page about the surname, rather than being like this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 20:43, 10 May 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. LFaraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Alison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Long-term unsourced BLP. Mainly a promo piece/CV, not sure anything is notable and I wasn't able to verify any of it in reliable sources independent of the subject. J04n(talk page) 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I could not verify sources either. The article confuses ad awards (if they are real) with personal awards.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete self promotional. possible WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As said above, this looks like an autobiography, even down to a "what I did on my holidays" section. No evidence of notability, unless it can be demonstrated that any of the (unreferenced) awards are more than routine. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The "awards" are mostly Finalist, Shortlist or Entry!--Nixie9✉ 22:25, 16 May 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. LFaraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital dementia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not encyclopaedic. Reads like a "how-to" guide and appears to contain original research. Deb (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a commonly-used term, sources don't indicate notability. There's some related articles we might redirect to, like Is Google Making Us Stupid? which are more in-depth and better sourced. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability not established. Mcewan (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may be a borderline WP:NEOLOGISM case but ultimately I find the sources underwhelming to show that this is both a widely used term as well as a notable one. Mkdw^talk 01:14, 16 May 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 - nothing notable just some guy trying to promote himself. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loi Mistica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Hoax. Lacks notability. Full of made up shit. Claims lots of charting and certifications but Billboard comes up empty [20]. Claims albums released by Sony but there is no verification from anywhere but his own site. Everything is sourced to his own site. More fantasy on his other pages. Beautiful In My Eyes (Loi Mistica song) charted in 6 countries? UK [21]. Rubbish. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also including most of his other articles.

Hillary Jane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Loi Mistica... Piano Hits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mistica Heart Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Beautiful In My Eyes (Loi Mistica song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Right Here Waiting (Loi Mistica album) is already at afd. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that the author of Loi Mistica had attempted to blank the page. ... discospinster _talk 14:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all for failing WP:V. Notability claims cannot be supported by reliable sources. Searches get only user-generated content sites. This is an elaborate walled garden of unverifiable (and some outright false) information. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Nothing notable there just some guy trying to promote himself. Koala15 (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all speedily - Per CSD:G3, these are confirmed hoaxes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:26, 9 May 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. LFaraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonville Cricket Club Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This ground no longer exists as a cricket ground and is not used by Cliftonville Cricket Club: see: Cliftonville Cricket Club History Mooretwin (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The venue was used for a List A international which ensures its notability. WP has numerous articles about former sports venues so all that is needed is for the article to be updated. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has held List A cricket. Plenty of cricket grounds no longer exist, 140 plus major venues in England alone. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if it were to be retained, the article would need to be renamed as it is no longer the Cliftonville Cricket Club Ground and it is arguable if it ever went under that name in any case. Mooretwin (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jack. None of the article being out of date, the title being incorrect or the subject no longer existing are grounds for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is the name used by CricketArchive for the ground. Many grounds are imaginatively "named" after the club that plays there: East Gloucestershire Cricket Club Ground, Moreton-in-Marsh Cricket Club Ground, Hatherley and Reddings Cricket Club Ground, Boughton Hall Cricket Club Ground, to name a few! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely correct. And, if Mooretwin can provide from a recognised source the "true" name of the venue, he may of course use the MOVE facility to rename the article. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 18:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the previous reasons given. But, to be fair, User:Mooretwin has contributed significantly in the past to articles on cricket in Northern Ireland, and I do not doubt his good faith in this nomination. Johnlp (talk) 20:38, 11 May 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. LFaraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ingate Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable and no assertion of any notability. Unreferenced apart from own advert and press release. Fails WP:CORP  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article edit history shows significant editing by a succession of WP:SPA accounts associated with the company (one of which was blocked). That said, the current content is lacking in promotional overtones. But this just appears to be a firm going about its business; a Highbeam search turns up industry publication coverage of the firm's product announcements, but I am not finding evidence of particular notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 10 May 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 Vedic Mathematics (book). It seems like the consensus is that the article about the content of the book is not notable and should be redirected. Out of two options - redirecting to the book or to the author - the first one is clearly preferable. On the other hand, there is no consensus on whether the book itself is notable, and given it was never AfDed, I am not going to take any action on the article Vedic Mathematics (book).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic mathematics (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A random editor may find the book to be cited by secondary sources but a closer inspection reveals that there is only two secondary reliable sources by K.S. Shukla and B.B. Dutta. The rest of the sources added here are all by conflict of interest Hindu nationalists or by primary sources. It seems to me that this book surely falls under Wikipedia:No original research or a walled garden of Wikipedia:No original research. And I am personally very interested in Indian mathematics and I have made contribution on it in wikipedia. But this article in no sense belongs to Indian mathematics but rather a propaganda tool for Indian mathematics. Solomon7968 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:It is interesting to note here that there is another article by the name Vedic Mathematics (book) implying the same book. If consensus emerges to delete this article it will be automatically extended to that article also. The edit history shows that article has got significant fewer edits. So I am reluctant to nominate that for deletion. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that should be deleted too, if we get consensus here. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There seems to be a confusion. My concern is not notability but WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. As I mentioned there are only three (I previously forgot S. G. Dani) reliable source. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I will advise every advocate of a separate article to consider my suggestion of merging the content of the two articles on the book to the article on the author Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, should be deleted. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This review suggests that the book might be notable. Problematic, yes, and that has to be part of the article, but notable. I'm not sure if notable enough though. — HHHIPPO 13:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but merge with Vedic Mathematics (book). Notability is established through the sources. A scan for OR would be appropriate, though. Qwertyus (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My concern is not notability but WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and the book fails both. And if you read the review by S. G. Dani (a Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award winner and a neutral souce) it criticises rather praises the book and terms it a propaganda. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point. The book is not NPOV, but it need not be to deserve an article. The article makes it quite clear that the book's content is not accepted by mathematicians and that is a forgery. That's interesting, encyclopedic information about a book like this. Qwertyus (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article don't makes it clear. Except the first paragraph the whole material is cited from the pages of the book. If the article has to survive Afd then we have to delete at least 90% of the article. Instead I advise to merge the two articles on the book to the page of the author and make it a redirect. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic is notable, the article should stay. To write it from a neutral point of view and give criticism due weight is a matter of improving the article, which can be done. I don't see a reason for deletion there. — HHHIPPO 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is having Only three reliable secondary source all of which shows the article in a bad light is notability according to wikipedia standard? Solomon7968 (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says Multiple sources are generally expected. It doesn't say more than three sources are required. I checked only one of the sources, so I can't say if the other two provide significant coverage or if they are reliable and independent, but the number of sources doesn't seems to be a problem here. Neither is it a problem that the book is shown in a bad light. Our inclusion criterion is a topic's notability, not its quality. — HHHIPPO 16:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many valid stubs with only one reference or so, but in this case neither of the reference seems strong to me. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've already suggested this: Talk:Vedic_mathematics_(book)#Should_this_article_be_deleted? The article is a complete mess, and the content is not mathematics. Perhaps the book should be mentioned somewhere else? I cannot understand the suggestions (above) to "merge with Vedic Mathematics (book)... this is surely the page we are proposing to delete. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a mess, but I think some of the content can be saved, esp. the critical reviews. The fact that a book contains nonsense is no reason not to give it a Wikipedia page, as long as its contents are not presented as fact. I'm proposing to radically trim the article down. The "mathematical" part of the article should probably go.

As for the merge proposal, there are two articles about this book. They need to be merged, if both are kept. Qwertyus (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crumbs! I had not seen that there is Vedic_mathematics_(book) and Vedic_Mathematics_(book) differing only in capitalisation! Certainly the two must be combined, if any of this is worth keeping, which I doubt. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest making both the two article on the book redirect to the article Bharati Krishna Tirthaji Maharaja who is the author of this book. If a separate article on the book is kept it is bound to be vandalised by COI editors. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a redirect, but given the state of that article, I'm not sure if it would prevent vandalism. Qwertyus (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WorldCat seems to show only 21 copies held by institutions over all its 9 editions. Agricola44 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. I've updated the article Bharati Krishna Tirthaji with information from the article being discussed to bring it closer to a neutral POV. I believe that requires the original page history to be kept, so please replace by a redirect instead of all-out deletion. Qwertyus (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the rationale laid out by Solomon7968. This article appears to be a case of heavy WP:OR. Mar4d (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by Qwertyus, deleting the page history would be a copyright violation. So the choices are Keep or Redirect. — HHHIPPO 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by copyright violation. Afd means nomination for deleting the article all together not deleting the page history. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any such claim from Qwertyus, and deleting the history along with the page would not violate any copyright. If you mean that he’s merged the article into another, then yes, the history should be preserved; but whether to merge or delete is what’s being discussed here. —Frungi (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I meant. I understood he did at least a partly merge. But you're right, that can be undone if the result is delete without redirect. — HHHIPPO 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Large portions of the article are not clear at all. For example, for the "Method 1: example: using multiplication to calculate 1/19" section, I'm at a complete loss to understand what the numeric manipulations are doing (and I have a degree in Math). Also, comments/asides such as "Run this on your favorite calculator and check the result!" make the article look unencyclopedic. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move back to the original title. This article is not about the book (which by the way, is also notable). It's about a system of calculation (there is a separate article on the book) The article was moved from Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics to the current title by a user without any discussion. There are truckloads of books from the Vedic Math "experts" (e.g. [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] etc.) There are several reliable sources that discuss the system and the controversy surrounding it (e.g. [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] etc.) The claim of the system being "Vedic" is fraudulent and it's more of a collection of arithmetic techniques than anything else. But still, it's notable, if only as a fad or a controversy. utcursch | talk 17:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having truckload of reference does not make anything suitable for wikipedia. My concern is secondary reliable source. And your point that it is not a book is wrong. The title clearly suggests that it is the article of the book. Again my concern is not notability but secondary reliable source. If this article by chance any how survives Afd I am going it to strip it off all its material which is of primary source. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The title clearly suggests that it is the article of the book" - please read my comment again - the article was originally titled Bharati Krishna Tirtha's Vedic mathematics - it was moved to current title without any discussion.

As for your deletion nom, like User:Qwertyus above, I don't understand the point that you're trying to make. Maybe you're trying to say one of these two things:

1. The book itself is not notable because it's based on fraudulent claim / original research
2. The article should be deleted because it contains unsourced/OR content

In either case, the article should not be deleted:

1. That's not the definition of notability. Truckload of reference means presence of secondary reliable sources: there are at least a dozen books whose sole purpose is to discuss this topic (linked above, ignoring the original book written by Tirthaji). There are hundreds of articles in reliable sources which discuss the topic (some of them are linked in my above comment). These qualify as secondary sources. For the same reason we have an article on The Weight-Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About - the claims in that book might be wrong, but the book is still notable.
2. AfD is not meant for discussing cleanup issues. If you belive an article is NPOV, tag it with {{npov}}. If you believe an article is OR, tag it with {{original research}}. utcursch | talk 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Let the debate complete and if the article survives Afd then I will start work on it. Now I am busy with some other articles on wikipedia. To make it NPOV the article have to be stripped off for at least 90% of its total volume. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again I see that you are from India. I am also from India. So please do not associate any nationalism with it. The long tradition of Indian mathematics will go down if this kind of non sense gets association of nationalism from Indians. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? My keep vote has nothing to do with "nationalism". I openly called the system fraudulent and a fad in my comment above. A concern about "the long tradition of Indian mathematics" going down due to "non sense" is not a good reason to insist on the deletion of an article. Both the book and the system are notable as shown by the links in my first comment, and that's why the article should be kept. The good and bad things about the system or the book should be discussed in the article. At worst, the two articles should be merged. utcursch | talk 18:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like the person above who tried to struggle through one of the explanations ("Method 1") I have a degree in maths, and I can say with confidence that there is nothing here of mathematical interest. But I also see that like the slimming books, some things never go away. Of this page (the "lowercase" Vm), the first 10% is mention of the controversy (fair enough), the last 20% is references (good, I suppose), but the 70% in the middle is confused attempts to describe the meaning of the 19 items in the "List of 16 sutras". At the very least, if any of this is to stay, someone should volunteer to clean it up such that a person with mathematical expertise can confirm that the terminology is normal, all the sanskrit words are glossed properly, and so on, in other words so that the article makes sense. I think the "truckloads" argument is very feeble: a glance at the references given suggests that they are all vanity publications -- none of the reviews, where there are any, read like mathematically informed views. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, I agree that the so-called Vedic Maths is "more of a collection of arithmetic techniques" than mathematics. But that's not the point. The point is that the topic is notable - it doesn't matter if it's fraudulently called "Vedic" or "Maths". There are plenty of sources that are not vanity publications - some of the books are published by established houses such as Jaico and Motilal Banarsidass. A search for "Vedic maths" on Google Books/Scholar/News archives easily establishes notability of the topic (nearly all the results are about this system, not the mathematics in the Vedic period). Saying that this article should be deleted because it's not real mathematics is like saying that the article on Scientology should be deleted because Scientology is a scam. If an article contains NPOV/OR content, it should be cleaned-up, not deleted. That's not what AfDs are for. utcursch | talk 02:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is quite reasonable. But the point here is that the 70% of the page that is neither mention of the controversy (which could (better?) be in the other article on the book), nor references, consists of a total jumble: at the very least, a claim that there are 16 "sutras" ought to be followed by 16 items, not 19. So there really is no coherent description of the "system" (such as it is) at all. Therefore, deleting it would not lose anything of value, and if someone later managed to write a coherent description of the system the page could be created anew. Any bits of this page that seem to have any value could be simply merged into the other article about the book. After all, one of the references here is a protest by Indian mathematicians that this is neither "Vedic" nor "mathematics", so it really does not deserve to have a WP article by that name. It is basically just the content of the book. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion to merge the total content of this article to Vedic Mathematics (book) which is about the real book and make the book article a valid stub and deleting the article which is discussed here. Solomon7968 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Vedic Mathematics (book) now redirects to Vedic mathematics (book) J04n(talk page) 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I reverted your edit because actually the two subjects are different. Surely it is confusing but Vedic Mathematics (book) is about the book and Vedic mathematics (book) is the real article with promotional content. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article's subject (barely) meets WP:NBOOK; the need for cleanup is separate from the need for deletion. Miniapolis 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you have probably not realised that there are TWO pages: "Vedic mathematics (book)" and "Vedic Mathematics (book)" (capital M). The capital M one is about the book; the lowercase m one is about the (notional) content of the book. This is not a good idea! Imaginatorium (talk) 06:30, 22 May 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. LFaraone 05:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Odrzywolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 11:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the subject fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 07:39, 16 May 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. LFaraone 05:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cuatro Vientos crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Not notable aviation accident.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 09:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to List of air show accidents and incidents.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my original prod as just not notable (already mentioned on List of air show accidents and incidents so doenst really need a merge). MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the mention in List of air show accidents and incidents is sufficient. What else can be said about this? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The mention was insufficient, e.g. failing to mention secondary victims, but should be now.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence, I now support Delete.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – agree with Jezhotwells. — Lfdder (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article is non-notable at all. Agree with Jezhotwells too.L. Zheng Wei (talk) 6:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I also agree with Jezhotwells. Not notable and has received no coverage across the world. Fails WP:AIRCRASH as well. Springyboy (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It had a large coverage in Spain. The pilot was a notable person and thousands of people saw the accident in the place. Some people were injured. After the accident, controversy rose about security planning in the airport. - Joxemai (talk) 12:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It had coverage across Europe and the pilot was experienced. There were lots of people who saw the accident and there were injuries. Jrmrbr (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jezhotwells →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pilot was not Wikinotable (being an unspecified assistant to the Minister is not notability); while a tragic accident, this does not rise to the level required for notability. WP:TOOSOON at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:22, 14 May 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. LFaraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just For Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An IP attemoted to PROD the article, but on the talk page with no rationale given, so I have removed it. There is no evidence that this company is notable; being long-established and having a trademark is no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 08:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:COMPANY--Nixie9✉ 22:30, 16 May 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 Tom_and_Jerry#Cartoon_Network_reboot_.282013.29. Mkdw^talk 01:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom and Jerry Show (2013 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sockpuppet fodder. An alleged upcoming 2013 cartoon series with zero references? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect to Tom_and_Jerry#Cartoon_Network_reboot_.282013.29. According to this link there are plans for a show to air in 2013. However, there has been no in-depth coverage of this show. There are supposedly press releases out there, but the only two places I've found them are on slightly dubious sources. ([34], [35]) This might be a viable enough redirect, although I'd really like to have more information about this before we add that much to the main article. By that I mean that I'd like to have at least one PR printed in a source that's a bit more reliable than a blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually wondering if this is dead in the water, considering that it's supposed to start this year and there is little to no coverage of this aside from a few brief mentions and some PR on a few nn blogs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Even if it is dead in the water, I'm sure the mention of the reboot will still be in the Tom and Jerry article. And, if nothing else, it can be recreated with actual sources and notability if it does come out. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...remember the past...} 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect - Sounds reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:22, 18 May 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. Mkdw^talk 01:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin O Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 10 minutes from article creation to AfD, with no intermediate steps to improve or at least tag the article? WP:BEFORE is more than just a good idea. - Dravecky (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Notability can't be improved(on your own). I've already checked for the subject's notability and have not found it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found a couple of sources and am adding them to the article. I would suggest a Google search, a notability tag, a message to the creator in their talk page, then a PROD tag before taking an article to AfD. 10 minutes from creation to AfD with no intermediate steps and no clean-up efforts is just biting the newbie. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as I've found a few sources, one more on point than the other, and added them to the article. While Wallace's latest book is from a notable publisher, she may better meet notability guidelines as a hotelier than as an author alone. More sources would be better. - Dravecky (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not the strongest claim to notability I have ever seen, but enough to satisfy the relevant guidelines. Safiel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to delete I may have been feeling overly charitable the other day. Very little on Google and the sources given indicate only local notability. Safiel (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While I would love to vote keep as this seems like an interesting author, there are not enough WP:RS to support notability. She has 2 books, both of which are listed in Amazon, but nothing really talking about her or the books. The 2 source that are in the are in the article are local coverage so they would support content in the article, but not notability. Unfortunately, she falls short of WP:GNG unless there is significant coverage (which I cannot locate). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The two sources cited are local news stories that mention Wallace's role in a ghost hunt and the restoration of a hotel, but they don't show the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG and particularly by WP:AUTHOR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of her two books is self-published using "Bookstand Publishing", a vanity press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only coverage is from a small local newspaper, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:30, 7 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, Black Kite (talk) 05:59, 9 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, LFaraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]