Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandanavanam 120km}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indians-Tigers rivalry}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indians-Tigers rivalry}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditmas Junior High School 62}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ditmas Junior High School 62}}

Revision as of 03:16, 11 January 2013

< 10 January 12 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandanavanam 120km

Nandanavanam 120km (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 to meet notability per WP:FILMNOT. I can only find references comparable to the IMDB. WP:FILMNOT states, "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, or any other similar databases, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however." CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep – The article has received significant coverage in the media. To name a few:

[2],[3],[4], [5], [6]. As MichaelQSchmidt says, just because the article is poorly written, it shouldn't be deleted. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:06, 15 January 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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indians-Tigers rivalry

Indians-Tigers rivalry (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)

PROD removed by primary editor (actually it looks like two different accounts run by the same person, which is another matter). This is a non-notable "rivalry". In my Google News search, I see that a few journalists use the "r" word in conjunction with these teams, but there's no indication that it actually is a rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely not notable enough for its own article.--Astros4477 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't let the long history between the two teams fool you. Out of the three sources in Google News, one states that it is a rivalry, and the second mentions those two teams played against each other second most-time in American League history, which is an interesting tidbit, but not enough to create a "rivalry" article. Also the Indians and Tigers had their peaks in separate eras, which made most games they played against each other mostly irrelevant. The Tigers of the 1930s and early 1940s, the Indians were near the bottom of the division, ditto with the Tigers of the late 1960s and 1980s. With the competitive Indians teams of the late 1940s-1950s and 1990s the Tigers were in the lower division, or in some cases last place. Scholarly sources of these teams doesn't mention of rivalries neither. In other words classic WP:NOR violation. Secret account 04:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of time the Tigers and Indians have finished 1st and 2nd in the standings: 4. 1908, 1940, 2007, 2011. From 1901 to 2012, 111 years, it's happened 4 times. That's not enough for a true, notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just because teams play each other a lot, it doesn't automatically make them rivals. Sources that describe the two teams as long-time rivals just aren't there. Frank AnchorTalk 05:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think we have to ask how we're defining "rivalry". Do all divisional opponents have some form of rivalry between them? Sure. But for a Wikipedia article aren't we asking for substantial rivalries? I mean, when someone comes here they're looking to read about rivalries that are notable to baseball as a whole. And in that sense Tigers-Indians just isn't notable. Sure fans of those teams might be interested but it doesn't matter to Baseball as a whole. It's not notable.Ultimahero (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They arent there if you aren't looking for them. Such as here, here and here. Oh and the real crown jewel of these refs I have found with a whopping 1.5 minutes of effort is this Forbes examination of their rivalry. Let me just quote CBSsports for a moment "Indians/Tigers is intense. The rivalry here stems from the fact that both teams normally contend for the AL Central Division Crown. Each series draws a significant amount of passion, as something normally is at stake for the winner. With baseball's American League being what it is with the big-market powerhouses to the east, the best chance either team has of winning is through the divisional title.

The past few years have seen the Indians and the Tigers flip flop for divisional superiority. Since each city has a passionate baseball fanbase, it can be argued that the brewing resentment is just waiting to erupt into full-blown hatred." Definitely passses WP:GNG with these WP:SOURCES PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I believe that you are just trying to find anything you can that might support your conclusion. However, these articles you’ve cited are very poor. Let me explain:
  • As you cited from the CBS article, it asserts that the rivalry is “intense” because the two clubs “normally contend for the AL Central Division crown”. However, a simple look at the standings refutes this claim. From 1995 through 2001, The Indians won 6 of seven division titles. During the stretch, the Tigers had a losing record every year and never finished higher than third in the standings. From 2002 through 2006, both teams only had one winning season each: 2005 for the Indians (when they finished 22 games ahead of the fourth place Tigers), and 2006 for the Tigers (where they finished 17 games ahead of the fourth place Indians). From 2007 through 20012 the two clubs have finished above 500 only a single time in the same season: 2007, when the Indians were 8 games better than the Tigers. So in 18 years of playing for the AL Central, the two clubs have been in contention with each other only once. (And that’s if you count an eight game differential in the standings as contending.)
  • The “ClevelandFan” article is not about the rivalry itself. It doesn’t even discuss the rivalry, thus it does not apply.
  • The Blade article says this: “Somewhere in all of this warm and fuzzy rhetoric is a budding rivalry between these two teams, and the players are well aware of it to.” So the author believes that the rivalry is just beginning to form, and will be competitive barring a “collapse unforeseen by most national pundits”. Well, that collapse happened, as the Tigers finished in last place in 2008 and the Indians have been below .500 each year since. So the very thing the author cites as a possible impediment to this just barely conceived rivalry wound up happening. So, at best this article might be able show that there was a rivalry for a year or two, at best. Hardly demonstrates there’s a rivalry in the sense that is needed for a whole Wikipedia article to be devoted to it.
  • The article by Forbes is not a good article. It’s major premise is to consider how much teams will mark up “rivalry” games, with the idea being that if fans are willing to pay more to see their club play a particular foe, then perhaps a rivalry exists there. However, the subsequent ranking have nothing to do with said mark-up (for example, the Cardinals-Cubs are ranked lower than the Pirates-Phillies despite having a higher mark-up). Presumably the writer just subjectively chose whichever teams he wanted.Ultimahero (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But Ultimahero, If this shouldn't have an article than why should Brewers-Cubs? And how much AL Central and Indians-Tigers do you watch? The games are competitive, the two cities are close to each other and share lots of similarities with each other and for fans of the Indians and Tigers the game has a big game feel to it. It is the only divisional game for Indians fans that has a big game feel to it . The only reason the Yankees-Red sox rivalry gets far more attention than Indians-Tigers is because of media hype and market size and that New York and Boston have bigger market sizes than Cleveland and Detroit. The same goes for Dodgers-Giants and Mets-Phillies. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brewers-Cubs shouldn't have a rivalry. I would support that article's deletion as well. However, that's not the point. A flawed article in a different area of Wikipedia doesn't justify a second flawed article with the same problems. I don't watch many Tigers-Indians games but I don't need to. Are you saying we can only judge whether or not a rivalry exists between two teams if we watch the majority of games? Certainly that's not valid criteria. I don't need to watch the Yanks and the Sox, for example, to determine that they have a big impact on baseball and their rivalry is notable.
  • As for your criteria, how are the Tigers and Indians "competitive"? In the last 19 years, the time since the AL Central was created, the two clubs have finished 1st and 2nd in the division only twice. And one of those was 2011, when the Tigers finished fifteen games ahead and the Indians were below .500. I can't see how that's competitive. As for the cities being close, so what? That can enhance a rivalry, but that doesn't make a rivalry. Cincinnati is close to Cleveland too but that doesn't mean anything. Finally, how do you quantify "a big feel"? So the Indians aren't a good team the last few years, thus having little to play for, so the Tiger game are the only ones that make Indian fans excited? I get that but that doesn't make it a notable rivalry. It means absolutely nothing to the people outside of Cleveland and possibly Detroit. Come on, the Yanks and Sox or Dodgers and Giants have had far more impact on Baseball and it's history. That's why they get more coverage.Ultimahero (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumptions that the Tigers game is the only game that is a big game for Indians fans is wrong. In my opinion a big game feel is a game that has more excitement than a regular game. (e.g an indians game against the mariners or Royals). BTW a big game for Indians fans are games against the Reds, Tigers, Yankees or even the Red sox or a quality Interleague opponent. As for Brewers-Cubs, Indians-Tigers is a bigger rivalry than Brewers-Cubs and deserves more attention than it gets. And in 2011, for most of the year the Indians were relatively close to the Tigers . Even in 2012 the Indians were close to the Tigers until the end of July pretty much. And there IS history. In 1908 and 1940 the Tigers were only ONE game ahead of the Tribe for the A.L pennant. And Ty Cobb of the Tigers barely beat out napoleon lajoie of Cleveland for the batting title in 1908 or 1910 i'm not sure. And in 2007 the Indians and the Tigers were pretty much neck and neck during 2007 until the Indians swept the Tigers to finish them off and the games drew BIG crowds in both stadiums. And the same thing happened in 08 when both teams were bad. And also later that year the two teams got into a brawl that resulted in FOUR ejections and punches were thrown. There was also a brawl in 1936 where after the fight the Tigers fans threw stuff at the Indians. So I think some history is there and the hatred is there. Thanks, Clecol 99. Teamed up with Geocal5 to make the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF on how other stuff existing doesn't impact the current discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never assumed that the tigers were the ony big game for the indians fan. You said it was the only divisional game with a big feel. So I was asking what you meant. In any case the rivalry may matter to you but its not notable to baseball as a whole. No one outside the fan bases cares. And there have only been 4 1st and 2nd place finishes between the clubs: 1908 1940 2007 and 2011. That's hardly a notable history. Ultimahero (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not quite the case that the Indians and Tigers were never good at the same time; in 1908 the Tigers won the pennant over the Indians by half a game. Also, in that era Cobb and Lajoie were competing for the batting title. And in 1940 the Tigers won the pennant by 1 game over the Indians. Of course, two pennant races and some competitiveness over individual honors do not by themselves a rivalry make. But there is more to a rivaly than just competing regularly for a championship. Two teams in the same region may often have their own rivalry separate from competing for a championship, i.e., for bragging rights. This is often recognized by today's interleague play. And the Indians and Tigers, both from industrial midwest cities who have been in the same league and division for many years would seem like good candidates for such a rivalry. That of course does not make it so. So we need to go to the sources. And PortlandOregon97217's are convincing to me. But they only scratch the surface. Here is a story I found on Google News going back to 1936 describing a rivalry between the two teams. [8] Here is another Google News story from 50 years later also describing a rivalry between the two teams. [9] Here is a story from 1940 claiming a rivalry, albeit in little detail. [10] Here is another story presuming a rivalry exists between the two teams. [11] Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PortlandOregon's sources are not satisfactory in my view, as Ultimahero described. These sources are better, which makes what I thought was a clear delete more borderline. I'm still not sure that these are enough to establish that an actual rivalry exists, or existed. But this is good work. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What? Forbes is legit! And to all those questioning the level of the rivalry. It doesn't matter if it is a friendly rivalry or a bitter rivalry. It is still a notable rivalry according to Forbes, and all the other souces dug up. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Forbes article legitimate? Did you see the comments I made above?Ultimahero (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCES. Nothing you can say can erase the fact that an article in a reputable and huge publication explicitly mentions an Indians-Tigers rivalry. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... It proposes a methodology for determining which are the biggest rivalries then subsequently ignores it's own criteria. That invalidates it's credibility in my opinion.Ultimahero (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I use the sources to assert that certain articles pass the WP:GNG. The gng is what I usually go aim for. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm just pointing out that this notable source is problematic because it doesn't follow its own criteria. Are we always obligated to accept a source, even if it has massive internal problems.? If this is the best the "keep" side has then they're in trouble. Are we not allowed to question the slurce if it doesn't even follow its own criteria for notability? I'm not saying the article makes no sense because I simply disagree. I'm saying it can't even follow the guidelines it lays out so how can it be useful to the reader?
  • The Reading Eagle says the rivalry “seems to be building up to major proportions” based on a single instance late in a single game in 1936 where a manager protested and fans threw fruit. Presumably, the author is not claiming it is at a high level but is building towards it and we would need to revisit the issue at a later date to see if anything materialized. Did this author ever revisit the subject? Because history doesn’t seem to support the notion that the rivalry went anywhere.
  • The Toledo Blade article says, “The rivalry simmered, spitting little patches of smoke, but there wasn’t much substance, not much to get excited about.” The article is about how, again, there MIGHT be something developing in the 1986 season. Again, history tells us it didn’t as the Tigers finished third and the Indians finished 5th. So did this author revisit the issue and give a follow-up?
  • The Herald Journal doesn’t discuss the rivalry, it just calls it a rivalry in the 1940 season. Which 1940 was one of the few examples of Indian-Tiger competitiveness, so that makes sense.
  • The Meriden Journal discuss the 1960 swap of managers. The article calls this “can only be interpreted as an attendance gimmick”. Hardly outrage, like we would expect from a notable rivalry.Ultimahero (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- why can brewers cubs-I repeat-BREWERS CUBS have an article if this can't? This is the same, but fiercer. People that said delete, you have to think about the other ones you guys let on. from, Geocal5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geocal5 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per PortlandOregon97217's investigative work. It is notable and reliable sources are available. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is flawed and successfully rebutted as non-sufficient. I saw his sources themselves, it was all passing mentions that didn't discuss the rivalry in general or didn't mention a rivalry at all, and the Forbes which is one of those gallery personal opinion human interest pieces that seemed copied it from the bleacher report, and I wouldn't consider it reliable at all in this context. The first source Rlendog gave was also passing mention that mainly discussed a feud that happened between the two teams at some random game. Again this needs more sources that discusses the rivalry in detail, not a bunch of passing mentions which is what been provided so far. Any journalist can claim team A and team B is a "rivalry" which they are not. Secret account 03:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also the less than two minute difference between this and this AFD, along with the time difference in many others AFDs doesn't show much confidence that you put any thought into your comments here or even read any of the sources. Remember AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE. Secret account 03:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It only takes a few seconds to open the page in question, hit control+f, then type in the subjects name, and in seconds you can see if the ref is trivial or more than that. It isn't hard, and it doesn't require you to spend the time and read the entire article. That would be a waste of time. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I too looked at his sources and found them to be sufficient IMHO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry, but as a Tigers fan, I would have to say that this rivalry is notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But just because two teams face each other often and are both contending, that doesn't make it notable enough for its own article.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a Yankees fan, I could make an argument we have rivalries with our other AL East opponents (Toronto, Tampa. Baltimore), or the KC Royals from the late 1970s, or the LA Angels or Twins for recent playoff appearances. I could, but I wouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... We have way too many of these trivial rivalry articles. By this point of view every divisional opponent could qualify as a "rival".Spanneraol (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curse Forbes for perpetuating these fake rivalries! (sarcasm) Anyway, please read this if you still believe this is a trumped up rivalry. Remember, Verifiability and not truth. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't know that I've done a great job explaining my problem with the Forbes source so let me try again. Forbes is not a sports publication; it's primary focus is business and finance. While Forbes does publish sports articles or lists from time to time, even those are largely comprised of "richest team" types of lists. So I don't think anyone could rightly call Forbes an expert in the field of sports in general or baseball in particular. So, when a publication doesn't have an expertise in specific field should we really be citing them? I mean we wouldn't quote, say, an ESPN article as a source on world affairs, right? Because that would be out of their area of focus. So while it's true that our goal is "verifiability", the source also needs to be able to speak credibly in that particular field. Besides, if this "rivalry" is as substantial as it's proponents claim it to be then shouldn't we be able to fine some references from actual baseball people? Former players, managers, writers whose primary focus is Baseball, etc.?Ultimahero (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't let that slide, my fellow Oregonian friend. "Verifiability Not Truth" is Orwellian gibberish. Here's Mr. Jimmy Wales on the matter: "Everyone who thinks it is better to have an error in Wikipedia rather than correct information is always wrong at all times. There is nothing more important than getting it right. I'm glad that we're finally rid of the "verifiability, not truth" nonsense - but it's going to take a while before people really fully grasp what that means." (Sept. 25, 2012) The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability and veracity. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 20 January 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, JayJayWhat did I do? 01:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sources, passes GNG, and I can't agree that there are "too many" of these rivalry articles. If there's sufficient coverage, we can have articles about them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a historic rivalry despite the fact that the two teams have played each other many times over the years. Every team has played every other team in every sport many times over the years, this does not involve a historic rivalry capable of carrying its own page, such as, for example Packers-Bears in football, USC-Notre Dame in college football, Lakers-Celtics in basketball, Yankees-Dodgers in baseball, Kiwis-South Africans in rugby, etc. Carrite (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the Indians and tigers play in the same division 18 times a year so it is a legit rivalry. 198.228.200.28 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, so do the Padres-Rockies, Blue Jays-Oriels, and Astros-Mariners. Do those deserve their own page? If not then same division is not enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry.Ultimahero (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. The sources are insufficient (as they rarely even discuss the "rivalry" itself) and there's just not enough history to support this inclusion. This article only dilutes true sports rivalries that are actually meaningful to people outside of a small fan base.Ultimahero (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThat is not a valid reason to why you say this is not a rivalry is because this is a divisional matchup that IS a good rivalry and to astros 4477 i'm not saying this is a rivalry because they are in the same division. This is a classic divisional rivalry that has hatred and some history. I would agree with that assessment if this was about the Indians rivalry with the Twins or Royals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.63.104 (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just assert that the rivalry has hatred and history. Document that hatred. Show how the teams have historically hated each other. And prove that there's a deep history because I don't see it. I see four seasons where these two teams competed for a playoff spot: 1908, 1940, 2007 2011. 4 seasons throughout more than 100 years of existence isn't enough.Ultimahero (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You shouldn't judge rivalries cheifly on 1/2 finishes there were also competitive seasons that were NOT 1/2 finishes I think there were a couple times in the 1940's or 50's where the two teams were within 10 games of the American League. There also is hatred because there has been a couple beanball wars over the years[reply]
Clecol99, I think close 1st and 2nd place finishes are the best way to judge a rivalry because that directly relates to two clubs being in direct competition for a playoff spot. In general, I don't think 3rd or 4th place finishes mean much. That being said, I'm open to examining more evidence but, with all due respect, its your job to provide it. I don't think its sufficient for you to say "I THINK there were some times in the 40's or 50's where X happened." If you think this rivalry should stay then you need to do the work to find the data. "I THINK" isn't good enough. As for the supposed "beanball wars", that's great. Find the references and we can talk about it. But I can't really comment on it until then.Ultimahero (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment This is deliberately neither a recommend keep nor a recommend delete - as someone who lives on the other side of the Atlantic I do not know enough about baseball to know whether the article is important or not. The main thing I notice is that the passion behind the above debate is more baseball-related, than Wikipedia related. The article is basically a description of the number of times two baseball teams have played each other and some currently unsourced assertions relating to that. That shows to me some NPOV problems, as I (and possibly much of the world outside the US) have never heard of them, any more than most of you guys have heard of Plymouth Argyle F.C., yet anyone in the UK interested in football can tell you who Argyle's local rivals are. Despite the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion there have been no attempts to improve it/demonstrate its notability by integrating those references proclaimed above. Other than a list of fixtures (and we are not here to write lists) the article tells me little more than can already be read at Cleveland_Indians#Divisional, which could be expanded by a couple of sentences and an external link to a results table which the rivalry article says it takes all its information from. Even the title shows NPOV problems (a more encyclopedic style would be "Rivalry between Cleveland Indians and Detroit Tigers"). Let us remember that our average Wikipedia reader is not an American baseball fan, and the article (if kept) needs rewriting to a point of view neutral of baseball so that it becomes informative to the worldwide readership, anyone from a Russian law student to a Kenyan grandmother, who may not be familiar with the ins-and-outs of league baseball and will expect to see independent references. Baldy Bill (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't doubt that this rivalry exists, but beyond mentioning this in the articles on the two teams, I don't see that an encyclopedia article on that rivalry is justified. Even if it were, the article we have would need a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 10:51, 26 January 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 Brooklyn#Education. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditmas Junior High School 62

Ditmas Junior High School 62 (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)

Article is about some random junior high school in Brooklyn that completely fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unless something notable happened there or it has a significant history behind it, which I cannot find any evidence of for this school, elementary and middle schools are not considered notable for Wikipedia The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree for all the reasons stated by The Legendary Ranger. --Arg342 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:25, 18 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reslisting debate since this discussion has no clear consensus for having 1 redirect and 1 delete garnered after the past relistings.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safir English Language Academy

Safir English Language Academy (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 aren't any reliable sources listed in the article, and I can't find any online, so I don't think the subject passes WP:CORP. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (no opinion yet, but the following may help in finding information):
  1. The academy's usual name seem to be the "Safir Language Academy" (as it should be: they claim to teach other languages as well).
  2. The name in Persian is موسسه سفير گفتمان
  3. Their website is gosafir.com.
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 23:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mr. Stradivarius for the clarification. That case study has two authors. The main author has no relation with the Safir Academy. In fact 08:15, 1 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources have been identified that are sufficient to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi TerriersFan. I didn't think that the sources listed so far in this debate were enough to pass WP:ORG, per the independence and significant coverage concerns I noted in my comment above, so your assertion that the sources meet the guideline is a little surprising to me. Which sources in particular did you think were sufficient? Perhaps we are interpreting WP:ORG slightly differently? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per In fact links. ●Mehran Debate● 12:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there Mehran. Sorry if this sounds a bit rude, but did you actually look at In fact's links? These two links[12][13] don't have significant coverage of the school, and these two links[14][15] point to the same study, jointly written by one of the teachers at the school, and are therefore not independent of the article's subject. In my understanding, none of these links are able to count towards WP:ORG or WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I call this independent, whether it has been written by one of the teachers at the school, it's independent because it has been published by an independent and notable university. You're right that it seems not to be notable, but regards to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and also the significance of the school which has been mentioned here, overall I believe it could be notable. Sincerely ●Mehran Debate● 18:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that Ferdowsi University of Mashhad is a respectable institution, of course. No-one is doubting that. If we look at WP:GNG, though, it says that '"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator.' Note that it says "produced by" and not "published by". Although the publisher may be independent of the subject, the producers of the work are not. In all likelihood, the only reason this study was conducted at Safir English Academy was that one of the co-authors teaches there. This doesn't seem like good evidence that the school has been taken note of by completely independent sources to me. Also, I see that you have mentioned WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, but that usually applies to high schools and universities. As far as I can tell, Safir English Academy is a private language school that operates for profit, and we usually treat these kinds of schools as companies or organizations, with no automatic assumption of notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see the sentence "usually applies to high schools and universities" in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Adversely it has been written in the first line that "... schools and other education institutions ..." and also regards to Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.. And Safir is an independently accredited degree-awarding institution which has been mentioned in several independent sources. ●Mehran Debate● 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I didn't see any mention anywhere of them awarding degrees. If you mean Cambridge ESOL, that's not a degree, but a certificate of English proficiency. Maybe you are talking about another qualification they award that I didn't spot? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is adequate for keeping the article in my opinion. ●Mehran Debate● 20:20, 8 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent sources discussing the school. WP:ORG is our guideline here, the outcomes page is not a reason not to delete and indeed is likely to be affected by the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). What our guideline says is "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." This does not seem to be the case for this school and none of the !votes for Keep have made a case that it is. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry, as a deletion argument that is invalid. Experience shows that with enough local research high schools invariably can be made to meet WP:ORG. However, though we delete subjects that are not likely to be notable for lack of sources, we don't delete stubs of subjects that are likely to be notable; we tag for improvement - this is the way we develop the encyclopaedia. The constructive way forward is not deletion it is carrying out effective searches eg starting with the Persian Google. TerriersFan (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do your comments about high schools have to do with this article? It's not a high school. And your argument seems to be "surely we can find some sources to show notability some time in the future, so we won't delete this argument." No, if we can't find sources now, we delete it and allow it to be recreated if and when sources are found. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Altin

Josef Altin (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 WP:BLP cites not one reliable source. A Google search finds no immediately available appropriate sources.  Sandstein  14:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather prolific UK television actor. I did a search for his name and Wikipedia came up first. And then I found this deletion discussion. His being cast in Game of Thrones has resulted in its own significant fan base as well. Make an effort to get better sources. There's quite probably industry material out there that's not online. --Bastique ☎ call me! 00:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Probably" isn't good enough. If you want to keep the article, you must look for and cite such sources, see WP:BURDEN. Without reliable sources, we must not keep a biography of a living person.  Sandstein  03:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand what I've typed. I'm not arguing your rationale for the need for reliable sources. I'm not arguing with you at all. I don't even "want" to keep this article. I'm stating a fact that he passes the threshold of being notable and his biography deserves to be on Wikipedia. That means it's worth someone who is an active editor making the effort to look for reliable sources that almost certainly exist. That is also to say that I have no stake in keeping this article, so I don't care what the end result is. I'm not a very active editor any longer in the first place. And I am not going to go through the effort to find it myself. But anyone who discovers this page will know precisely what to do rather than going through the Brobdingnagian task of trying to understand Wikipedia policies or find themselves arguing with you when they don't have to. --Bastique ☎ call me! 04:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:25, 4 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if not a winner, a Screen Actors Guild Awards nomination pushes nicely at WP:ANYBIO. In determining WP:ENT, we do not look only at the very least, but instead at the length of the career, the total work done, and most specially those roles found significant to plot and story of notable projects. So in his prolific career,[16] we can recognize the totality and consider the more significant of those quite many named characters... such as Billy in multiple episodes of Being Human, as Jay Henderson in multiple episodes of The Bill as as Andy 'Mez' McKenzie in multiple episodes of Casualty, as Gary in multiple episodes of Misfits, as Darren in multiple episodes of Him & Her, and as Pypar in multiple episodes of Game of Thrones. The sng WP:ENT does not mandate that the actor be individualy himself the recipient of significant coverage (else that sng would not need to exist in the first place), but instead sets up criteria through which notability might still be asserted and recognized when the GNG is weak... as long as we have verifiability of the actor's work. If we then have dozens of "brief" mentions that confirm various aspects of the article, then fine... we use them. While SIGCOV is wonderful, it is not the sole means by which we can determine if someone is notable enough to be included herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily notable enough by virtue of the range of verifiable work in TV and West End. Reviews in The Stage and The Independent. Game of Thrones clinches it, but even without that I would keep. Mcewan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 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. Courcelles 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Trains

AfDs for this article:
Rob Trains (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, no reliable sources HectorAE (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 5 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not finding any reliable sources. The two quotations in the article are presumably gallery texts in conjunction with exhibitions: they were in the 1980s so it is unsurprising that they cannot be verified online, but both present the subject as up-and-coming and one would therefore really expect to see something firm that is more recent if he is to have any chance of meeting WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome- Bazzi mehman nawazi ki

Welcome- Bazzi mehman nawazi ki (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)

Unreferenced speculation per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. No assertion of notability per WP:GNG. Nothing about it online in English from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:36, 4 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:43, 11 January 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 Communist Party of Great Britain. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tankie

Tankie (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 term exists, and the article was recently improved significantly but it clearly has too many issues of original research. It belongs in wikitionary at best. In addition, the term is also used to describe members of certain british military unit - furthering the issue of it being a definition rather than an encyclopedic term. Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 3 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The crisis in the CPGB over the 1956 intervention in Hungary, and subsequent events, is only sketchily referred to in the main article and is notable enough for an article in its own right. But this is not the way to do it. A redirect to Communist Party of Great Britain would, though, be wrong. As pointed out, the primary meaning of Tankie is in reference to a tank crew - eg in a current BBC programme. That was the whole point of the usage in the CPGB (for those too young to remember, the use of Warsaw Pact tanks against counter-revolutionary elements characterised the interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in particular). --AJHingston (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that the term has multiple usages, one that is primary the Tank Crew mention, and the other that is a term for members of the CPGB. Perhaps the best solution then would be to redirect the term to Tank#Crew and leave a hatnote there regarding the verified usage of the term for members of the CPGB.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:04, 13 January 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. No views in favour of keeping this in three weeks makes this a clear delete. Michig (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explosion Fight Night

AfDs for this article:
Explosion Fight Night (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 kickboxing organization that has put on one show in the past 18 months and only 5 in its history (dates back to 2010). All the article's sources are the organization's website. Other sources I found appear to be either press releases for upcoming events or results from those events--either way it's just routine sports coverage (see WP:ROUTINE). Jakejr (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:51, 5 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that this organization is notable. I found no significant independent coverage of this organization, just the usual routine sports reporting of results. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible delete if additional sources aren't found. After some detailed searching, I found two relevant links here, here, here and here and here. I'm not fluent in French or from France so I wouldn't know how much more to search but I'm not seeing much for this article. I'm happy to reconsider if other sources are found though as mentioned in the beginning of my vote. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 15 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7 with additional comment "Essay, original research, no verifiable sources". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 16:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement data intelligence (MDI)

Measurement data intelligence (MDI) (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 was not notable when it was speedied on Dec 20, 2012 (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI)), nor when it was speedied on Jan 9, 2013 (with edit summary of "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): essay, OR, no sources, no more notable than when it was deleted under title Measurement Data Intelligence (MDI) in Dec 2012.)").

No refs. No GHits. No GNews/Books/Scholar.

Creator has a username that indicates it may represent a business or organization.

Recommend salting both titles to prevent endless recreations. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:20, 11 January 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. Tone 18:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011

AfDs for this article:
List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2011 (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)
List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Billboard Korea K-Pop Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All the information contained in these type of lists seems to fall under WP:IINFO. When the song entered the top 10, when it peaked, the number of weeks in the top 10 all seem extraneous. A previous discussion resulted in no consensus. There is List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (Korea) and the like as well, but there is both significance for and much more interest in songs which reached number one and coverage beyond the chart provider is not difficult to find. A top 10 seems a bit more arbritary (it could be top 20, top 40, or why not the entire hot 100). Lists of number twos have been deleted in the past, so why do we need entire top 10s. This also isn't even the main national chart in Korea, so this sets up top 10 for any and all published charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:01, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:28, 18 January 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 The Beginning (The Black Eyed Peas album). (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Light Up the Night (song)

Light Up the Night (song) (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)

Per WP:NSONGS, notability aside, songs should only be given their own article where significant independent coverage is given from reliable sources. This has not received extensive coverage and the subject of it being released as part of an iTunes countdown is already covered on the album's page — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 29 December 2012 (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 01:46, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:29, 18 January 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 R. Stevie Moore discography. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invites Comparison

Invites Comparison (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)

Unremarkable musical recording. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Mediran (t • c) 09:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect To R. Stevie Moore discography as a plausible search term. I feel that WP:NALBUMS fails me here a bit. This is a release by what can be considered a notable 'indie' artist, and it did not chart, but out of thousands of album articles on here, this one actually has an honest to god review from a reliable source. Still, the notability would be borderline at best, and there is no information here (other than the review link) that couldn't be added to the discography article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 18 January 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. There is a question here about notability but no general agreement. Some sources have been provided in the article, so I see no policy mandating deletion, and so this will default with the no consensus result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy J. Goodwin

Randy J. Goodwin (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)

Contested PROD with Starred in two television series and recurred in three others. Biographical article about an actor. Six pages into a Google search I can't seem to find anything that would establish basic notability under WP:GNG, and also fails WP:ACTOR as far as I can tell. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:50, 4 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to incubator - as Bongwarrior says, right on the fence. He could be definitively notable later, but that isn't a reason to keep the current article in main space. It can always be re-created. Perhaps move it to Wikipedia:Article incubator for now? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow stub to continue to grow over time and through regular editing. While sure, this fellow gets a LOT of one-ofs in episodic televison, his being verifiable in significant recurring roles as Kennedy Winslow in 23 episodes pf Fast Track, as Dante Harrison in 12 episodes of Linc's, as Max Ellis in 10 episodes of Abby, as Davis Hamilton in 8 episodes of Girlfriends, and as Dr. Jonas Martin in 6 episodes of The Vampire Diaries meet the criteria for inclusion set by WP:ENT, Rather than look at the least of an actor's roles, we instead look to the best and then consider overall career. With respects to the nominator, we look to SNG's such WP:ENT when we have difficulty under GNG. Your own nomination underscores a meeting of ENT even as it states he fails it. See WP:GNGACTOR. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Usually, I agree with MichaelQSchmidt (we agreed on Emma Degerstedt and I think others) but I feel there isn't much for a better article at this time. Google News searches for The Vampire Diaries, Abby and Girlfriends provided several TV listings thus minor mentions with even one for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation here and a few for Linc's. Unfortunately, I would like to have found some theatre roles but, alas, no. Indeed, his longest role was for Fast Track with some results here (mainly foreign but there is one Chicago Sun-Times article from 1997). Although this is similar to Emma Degerstedt, this actor is a grown man so a younger actor (currently attending school) is understandable though young and old can achieve the same levels sometimes. In addition, it seems he hasn't been significantly active recently though if he does have a family then that makes sense. I wish I could say keep considering the patches of good roles but I have no prejudice towards a future article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2013‎
  • Keep. Has had nontrivial recurring roles in multiple notable TV series, meeting the requirements of WP:ENT. Therefore, highly plausible as a search term. Notability guidelines are intended to identify topics that users are likely to refer to an encyclopedia about, not as some sort of measure of the subjects themselves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - appears marginally notable, and the article needs some work, but it does appear he is meeting WP:ENT, and there is a fair amount of traffic to that page 1207 views in the last 60 days, which is pretty good for a new article for such a minor actor. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG even if not specifically WP:ENT#1. I found some reviews of his work as an actor in Variety, see, e.g., [17]. I saw a few more behind paywalls. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 29 January 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 Phillips Exeter Academy. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soule Hall

Soule Hall (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)

Contested PROD long time ago, non-notable prep school dormitory, contains mostly OR and totally unreferenced. FrankDev (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 25 January 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. Various policy-based arguments are advanced. The nominator's argument is clear and well-supported by our policies concerning notability and reliable sources. Theoldsparkle's argument is clear and well-supported by WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There is a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE, which is traditionally resolved by selectively merging content which is sourced but not particularly notable into a parent article, and this would probably be the outcome most closely based on policy, but I cannot pretend there is really a consensus to do that, since it is only really proposed by Arxiloxos; Theoldsparkle proposes it only in the alternative. It is tempting to relist this debate again for further input, but having due regard for the third and fourth paragraphs of WP:RELIST, there is nothing to justify such an action.

Since this was a poorly-attended debate that did not reach a consensus, this close must be with no prejudice against speedy renomination but I would suggest that a discussion about the merge should take place on the article talk page first. NAC—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This debate was relisted while I was assessing it; I have decided to close it anyway, having regard to WP:RELIST.—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The Bloder Brothers

The Bloder Brothers (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 SNL recurring sketch. No consequential impact in popular culture nor significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:39, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 18 January 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. The Bushranger One ping only 09:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Bullnese

American Bullnese (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)

Delete Non-notable type of dog; the only secondary references I could find are in this gigantic list of mutt portmanteaus and a brief entry in this book. Google Scholar doesn't turn up any results. Most of the google results are directly related to Bullnese breeders or are on sites that probably scraped the name from Wikipedia. TKK bark ! 19:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete My opinion would be that the secondary, published reference under 30 American Dog Breeds in this book would apply to notability and secondary source independent of the author or breeder. The appearance in a list present in another book would serve as a tertiary reference, albeit small, in another independent, published source. There are also multiple web references independent of breeders or web scrapers. These include the CKC registry, pethealthandcare.com, and dogster.com. A quick reading of the articles on those websites would exclude them from being simple site-scrapers. -On a side note, I was born and raised in Maine in the Bath/Brunswick area. Beautiful area up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyJax (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC) — LibbyJax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, fails WP:GNG. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete On further review of the previous book source, another mention of the American Bullnese as the #2 dog out of 34 for couch potatoes along with the previous reference as one of 30 American dog breeds should contribute to the notability requirements. -On a side note, I do not feel the SPA tag applies. I am a first-time editor trying to publish an informative and neutral article about a dog breed I am passionate about. Since the beginning, I've felt marginalized by long-time editors or moderators and this entire process has left a bad enough taste in my mouth to discourage future contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LibbyJax (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LibbyJax. Article looks good enough. Chipper2Lews (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The book cited as a secondary source above was written/published by authors without any notable dog expertise. Specifically, Sandra Choron appears to be a publisher of books of lists [1]. A reputable secondary source should at the very least be written/published by someone who has notable experience in the area in question. While I could buy the argument that the American Bullnese is a "breed in development", the validation of this "breed" on Wikipedia is biased. The breed club was started and is still currently maintained by the "breed" founder, and it is not recognized by any reputable breed registry anywhere in the world. Recognition by the CKC is not a reliable way to tell what is considered a "Breed" as they allow registration of non-purebred "miscellaneous" dogs. I have mentioned this on the List of Dog Breeds discussion page - perhaps there should be a separate page for Breeds In Development, which could also include the Labradoodle/Australian Labradoodle which also has official breed clubs a dedicated base of breeders working towards a breed standard. Opendestiny (talk) 20:03, 24 January 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 The E.N.D. The Bushranger One ping only 09:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The E.N.D. Summer 2010 Canadian Invasion Tour: Remix Collection

The E.N.D. Summer 2010 Canadian Invasion Tour: Remix Collection (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 album release by The Black Eyed Peas. WP:HAMMER... very little information beyond a track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 29 December 2012 (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 01:47, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:33, 18 January 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. MBisanz talk 17:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suad Hota

Suad Hota (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)

Article about an amateur race driver. Article states that he is a three times National Champion in hillclimbing in Bosnia and Herzegovina in his category of cars. This is sourced with an article in a local newspaper Google tranlation from Croatian. Following WP:NMOTORSPORT he is not notable, as he is an amateur. Is being a National Champion in a category of a niche sport (hillclimbing) enough for WP:NSPORTS? Researches don't give him enough hits for meeting GNG. This is a Wiedergänger, deleted per CSD in November. Ben Ben (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS in my opinion. I can't find any information on the series he's supposed to be a three time champion of. It would appear the significance of this article is limited to Bosnia. If you Google him the best I can find are a bunch of links to YouTube and another article claiming he holds a "track record." The track isn't signigant either though by Wikipedia standards. I say the article should be deleted. Sabre ball t c 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is kept, two things have to be cleared:
The article currently uses an infobox that is designed for Formula One drivers. This causes links directing onto pages that are F1-related but lack any relation to Bosnian hill climbing championship.
What is Bosnian hill climbing championship in general and what is this category H15/E1+2000? What are the rules and how many competitors are participating there? To me this category name sounds very specific. Maybe he is so successful because he is the only competitor. ;) 217.227.119.114 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This driver may be notable, as a multiple-time champion - it depends on if the H15/E1+2000 category is fully professional or not, in which case he'd meet WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. However verifiability is an issue here; I can't find anything to prove or disprove notability, and with the overall lack of sources, 'default to keep' founders on V. So probably deleting is necessary now, but without prejudice to recreation if Bosnian sources can be found later. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikindani Center of HOPE

Mikindani Center of HOPE (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, no reliable or WP:verifiable sources. No GNews hits for either Mikindani Center of Hope or Hope Worldwide Kenya. 3 GBook hits, all sourced by Wikipedia (either Wikipedia Books LLC or VDM), no GHits of reliable sources. Article was tagged as dead end in 2010, no significant editing since. GregJackP Boomer! 01:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2012 (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 01:48, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:34, 18 January 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. MBisanz talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMS addiction (neé Textaholism)

SMS addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
Advanced search for: 
"SMS addiction"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr

Article is nothing more than a dictionary definition of a neologism. Perhaps it should be transwikied to wiktionary? Bensci54 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:44, 5 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:26, 11 January 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 Nicolas Cage#Relationships and family. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weston Coppola Cage

Weston Coppola Cage (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 son of Nicholas Cage. Appeared in two films in extremely minor roles, and "co-created" (aka lent his name to) a comic book with his father (The Cages were neither the writers nor artists). He has also been arrested. Not notable, and mentions in news sources are just that- mentions. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:08, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:35, 18 January 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 Fijit Friends. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fijit Yippets

Fijit Yippets (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 toy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fijit Friends Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 5 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above, not notable enough for own article.TheLongTone (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 18 January 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 Fijit Friends. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fijit Newbies

Fijit Newbies (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 toy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fijit Friends Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 5 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veta La Palma

Veta La Palma (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)

Promotional article about a non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The Time article already in the article as an external link is substantial coverage from a reliable source, as (so far as I can judge) is this article from El Mundo. And there are plenty of other GNews hits, though it probably needs someone with better Spanish than I have to sort out which of them are reliable. The article is definitely rather over-promotional at the moment, and badly needs in-line citations but, when the subject is notable, these are editing issues, not reasons for deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:10, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:24, 11 January 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 ♪ 15:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R204DESIGN

R204DESIGN (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 per WP:CORPDEPTH. WP should for very notable companies (whatever that is) rather than each and every run of the mill companies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 18 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - judging by the complete lack of anything online (apart from a couple of press releases) about the company or its work, it seems to have made no impact at the moment! Sionk (talk) 01:27, 25 January 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 while there are many arguments put forth for both sides of the discussion neither proponents offer significantly strong arguments, the reference to missing white woman syndrome has been ascribed to this event but without any substancial facts even if it was/is that isnt a reason for deletion(see:WP:DISCUSSAFD). Policy reasons put forth WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NotNewspaper are one in the same they refer to 4 points each are; 1, Journalism first hand reporting(nope), 2. News Reports enduring notability of people and events, enduring isnt defined in encyclopeadic as that is subjective measure that cant be defined. Point 3 Who's who coverage about an individual involved may not be notable should be limited to the article about the event, 4th point not a diary(nope). Considering the points 1, 4 definately arent the basis of this article. enduring is undefined, notability lets discount ABC coverage(presumed COI) the coverage is significant, reported on two continents and its independent of the subject. Pt4 cover the event not the person if the person isnt otherwise notable this artilce does that. To counter the notnews arguments the policy WP:N/CA sums this article up Articles about criminal acts, particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. Further keep arguements were of the media coverage, other events supported by media coverage of those events therefore on balance the discussions weight is one of keeping the article. Gnangarra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: While closing as keep I'm mindful on the issue of how "enduring" is defined and what that means to this article which is unresolved by both this discussion and policy. Gnangarra 08:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jill Meagher

Death of Jill Meagher (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, we don't generally include articles on noteworthy but temporal events... not unless they have lasting influence or they impact society over the long term. This is still fairly recent, so web searches tend to show primarily news updates on the unfolding situation, rather than significant sources that can demonstrate long-term importance. Powers T 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Coverage more substantial than a typical murder (which I would hesitantly ascribe to missing white woman syndrome), but no real in-depth analysis or wider impact. Protest turnout of 30,000 people (which the article doesn't mention) makes me reluctant to delete. Edit: Leaning towards keep considering the existence of articles like this. IgnorantArmies – 06:15, Saturday January 5, 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sureDelete Is there an equivalent of missing white woman syndrome for members of the media? One reason this case got more attention than usual was that she worked for the ABC. Inevitably they gave it lots of coverage, and my impression was that it increased coverage in other media outlets too, more than your average Joe (or Joanna) would have received. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified my position after further thought. Jill Meagher had no public profile before her unfortunate demise. If this was a rape/murder, it could have been a rape and murder of anybody. There is no lasting encyclopaedic significance in the fact that she was the victim. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:N/CA, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". The case do have headings in major newspaper, in at least two countries. For what matter the case is known, is not important, as the coverage itself is the criteria for notability. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we ignore the obvious conflict of interest among the media? HiLo48 (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading to link to conflict of interest in this debate, as I can't see any obvious signs of users neglecting NPOV have had an inpact of this article. The criteria is significant coverage of media. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Grrahnbahr - WP:COI is completely irrelevant to the media's coverage of the case. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom has it right. This is a crime involving a non-notable person. Simply having coverage by outlets in different countries isn't the intent of "international coverage". This is a regular crime against a non-notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a murder of an journalist working in a foreign country. It is not regular at all, and is covered by major media in at least two contries. According to the criterias, it is no demand for a notable victim, as the case itself could reach notability by significant media coverage. Grrahnbahr (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter. She was non-notable before her death, journalist or not, and the fact that it was covered by media anywhere won't absolve her from being covered only because she was a murder victim. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Niteshift, she was not a journalist merely an employee. and even if she was, it adds absolutely nothing to notability about her death. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a regular crime" - but certainly not a regular case. There is plenty about the case which is not "regular", as mentioned elsewhere in the AfD. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She was not a high profile media personality, so I don't think the media COI is relevant. The case is notable for the impact that social media had on both the search for her, the identification of and abuse towards the accused and it will continue and increase during the upcoming trial. There was an article about it just the other day. It will probably end up changing some laws over what can and can't be said online. The-Pope (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She may not have been a high profile personality before her death, but did you listen to or watch any of the ABC coverage at the time? It was massive, obviously because she was one of theirs. It's unlikely to change any laws, because there's no point bringing in unenforceable ones. HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not change the law, but articles like this show that it is more than your usual missing person/murder case. The-Pope (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I'm not seeing anything but a tragic death that has received respectful attention "worldwide".  The article is WP:NOTNEWS right now.  Naturally, if the story gets attention that leads to changes in the law, the article should appear on Wikipedia.  I didn't see a story about the impact of social media.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that it was a case of missing white woman syndrome (I do suspect that the volume of coverage this got was largely due to the fact she worked in the media), but it still got massive amounts of press over a sustained length of time. Definitely a step above your ordinary violent crime in the notability stakes. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: This was a high profile incident. The article is deserving of development to reflect this. Afterwriting (talk) 15:25, 16 January 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, MBisanz talk 04:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
because the court case for the accused started 4 months after. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is still coverage over long periods of time. — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 07:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A mention 4 months later isn't "long term notability". When did 4 months become "long term". The essay WP:RECENTISM suggests a 10 year test. Even if we use a 5 year test, 4 months is hardly a long time. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that looks like a 'mention', then some people have really high expectations. — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 02:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the trial is going to be finished tomorrow? or the news outlets will stop after 4 months? nope. Is it impossible to wait a few more months, to get a clear view as to whether or not this article is notable? definately not. Now, keeping in mind WP:BLUDGEON, I think that's about it on my part. — MST☆R (Chat Me!) 02:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was an murder that had a deep and significant impact on the city where the victim was murdered. It galvanised a response from males and females alike - there was a march of thousands down the street where she was snatched. There was also a marked public reaction in Ireland, where she hailed from. Notability here isn't dependent on the victim's profile, but the public reaction - and this was / is notable. Colonel Tom 13:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was a extremely significant event in Melbourne and Australia that has had continued reactions since. Rallies of 30,000 people are illustrative of this. MvjsTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this was an important story in both Brunswick in Melbourne history. The impact of social networking was of importance in this case and it is something that should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.124.37 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep What happened to her wasn't extraordinary, but the public outcry, the peace march, and the way it revived Reclaim the Night in Melbourne and other Australian cities was historic. Never before in Australia has the rape and murder of a woman created such a reaction. Interestingly, it preceded the protests in India about the student who was violently raped on a bus. It may be a coincidence, but it feels like these events are linked, and we as a society aren't sitting back and letting violence towards women be accepted as normal or inevitable.

As for the cynical "white woman syndrome" comments, and to those saying it's because she was working for the abc that she got all the media coverage, well there might be some truth in this, but there are many white women who are raped and murdered in Australian Cities every year, and they don't get this kind of attention. I think there are a lot of legitimate reasons why the public were so affected by this story; 1. the CCTV footage of a missing woman in the company of a strange man allowed us all to play 'detective,' 2. it happened in Brunswick, a neighbourhood which a lot of people have a personal connection to, being a popular place to go out, as well as a place where a lot of students live, 3. Her body was found, and the murderer was charged within a short space of time; so the interest had built up and then the discovery resulted in strong emotions. Just as the police raid on the Stonewall hotel that sparked the LGBT rights revolution wasn't particularly notable at the time, neither was Jill Meagher's rape and murder, but because it catalysed change, The Stonewall Riots have a place in Wikipedia. Time will tell whether the momentum generated at the time of the march builds into a movement, or becomes a distant memory. 

User:doloresdaphneTalking 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doloresdaphne (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the comments of User:doloresdaphne above. Whether we think the reasons for it are fair or equitable, the public reaction to this event (peace march, social media) was huge. The case in India that doloresdaphne refers to is the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, which has extensive coverage on wikipedia - and having occurred 16 December 2012, is more recent than this event. Format (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion has been reported in The Age newspaper in Australia: Murder victim Meagher may be wiped from Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The media coverage on this case was substantial. You can argue about whether that media coverage was proportionate or not, and what might have influenced it, but I don't think that's a relevant consideration. The "conflict of interest" policy refers to conflicts of interest in WP editors, not whether the media might have had personal motives for turning a case into such a big news story - extent of news coverage is relevant for notability, the reasons behind that news coverage are irrelevant. SJK (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood romances, babies, and their strange names get an awful lot of media coverage too. You will find mention of them hard to find in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No long term notability. The reason this case gained so much public attention was the vivid CCTV footage that was captured immediately prior to her demise and that was extensively shown in the media. I contend that had the last known movements of the deceased prior to her disappareance not been captured by CCTV, there would not have been such public attention to it. I cannnot see how the deceased is really any different to any other missing person who is subsequently found to be dead and that a criminal trial ensures following such discovery. The deceased would not have been in the public eye if not for the sensation of the events surrounding her death, and for that reason I contend that she be deemed unsuitable to have a page devoted to her in Wikipedia. May she rest in peace and may her family adjust to her untimely passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— FrostyInOz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is about an event that touched many people, not only because of the person (whom most of us didn't know) but because of the issues that her death brought to prominence (which all of us should know). Jill Meagher's ABC colleagues used social media effectively to bring attention to the case, in a way we haven't seen before, and it grew from there. As we got to know more about what happened that night, the dangers of doing something that so many of us have done without a second thought (walking home from the pub) became very clear. Jill Meagher's broader legacy will be to remind us of that, which is why the article on her disappearance should not be deleted but enhanced with detail and context. NotherAussie (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - there is plenty of precedent for WP articles on newsworthy Australian murder cases. This one is not as notable as some, but the use of social media and CCTV has certainly added to it. I say keep for now. (Disclosure: alerted to this by news article, but I've participated in plenty of AfD discussions in the past). Adpete (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The impact of the crime on the public is notable and ongoing. This was reflected by the media response locally and worldwide. The legal and political response regarding use of social media and impacts on the legal system are also notable with signficant comments made by Police and the Victorian Premier. While Jill Meagher may not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) notable person requirements, the murder event and subsequent response is notable. As per WP:N/CA don't rush to deletion. Peter Campbell 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hugely notable. Massive public reaction, big changes in attitudes to crime and sentencing for violent offenders as a direct result of this murder, which will be remembered for a very long time. I am astonished that there is even a question about this. Simply, deleting this would be absurd.

The reasons for the huge public concern are irrelevant. The fact of it is what matters. Tannin (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • '"Keep'". This event galvanised women and men across Melbourne and Australia against violence against women. In addition to the 30,000 - strong march down Sydney Rd not long after Jill's death, attendances at White Ribbon Day events a couple of months after her death were many times larger than in previous years. Media and community discussion about violence against women in this country is now an open and common discussion as never before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnzacFrank (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This event was more than simply the death of an ordinary Australian citizen, it was a highly publicized murder of a journalist known to many. For decades to come, when a woman goes missing in Melbourne, many will reflect on such a highly publicized incident. It has become a part of Australian history and Australian history has a place on Wikipedia. The deceased was a journalist and was widely known, the nature of the article is of little threat to anyone's privacy. The article exhibits to Australian society, a prime example of the prevalence of violence against women in the society of the time. It has become a significant historical event. Reasons for keeping this page far outweigh it's deletion. NacIVY (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you have evidence to show that Jill Meagher was widely known prior to her disappearance and death, please do provide it. I've seen nothing to suggest this. Colonel Tom 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From my personal experience living nearby as well as what I have read in the media and on blogs, this incident made significant and lasting impacts on: perceptions of safety in Melbourne (especially for women), risk of social media commentary prejudicing a fair trial and wider debate on appropriate sentencing for similar crimes. lheydon (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this was a national media conversation about women's rights and safety in Australia equivalent at a national level to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. It is emphatically not just a "missing white woman" syndrome - thousands of people marched in Melbourne in a campaign to highlight the matter. Slac speak up! 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This was an appalling nomination by an American editor, who clearly failed to make even the most rudimentary effort to assess the significance of this event in Australia. Now it has led to the humiliation of Wikipedia in the Australian media. Hope you're feeling proud of yourselves. The philosophy of deletionism is a scourge on this project. Manning (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This tragic murder changed a number of things. 1. It could have been "any" woman throughout Australia (not just Melbourne, I am from Sydney)- most women have walked 400 m in a supposedly busy and safe area late at night. It changed women's behaviour. 2. CCTV Camera - this helped solve the case with its widespread coverage. Ironically, we understand we are 'safer' because of such cameras' omnipresence, which in turn may or may not deter future attacks. 3. The unprecedented march of thousands in Melbourne cemented the first point. A tragedy, it lives on our minds and hearts and has touched and shaped society. [[User:Coastien| 27 January 2013 124.179.58.153 (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - While random rape and murder by an unknown assailant may be common in other countries, it is a rare occurrence in Australia. This was a societal shock to the Australian population because (1) Jill was not attacked by a relative or acquaintance, and there was no pre-planning or other motivation, (2) the assailant was known to Police, and while Australians historically hold a relatively dim view of uniformed authority, there is a general feeling that the system keeps us safe and (3) the assailant had approached other women previously, but due to (2), had not been reported. This is an open wound in the Australia psyche, and the societal ramifications have yet to be fully appreciated. It is therefore premature to delete this as being insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.10.115 (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - The crime gained immense national coverage and led to significant media coverage on the issue of CCTV and women's safety. Qualifies per WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. BlackCab (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The only (semi-)valid pretext to have this article is the extensive media coverage, but this coverage is just as unwarranted. The media often create such a feedback loop when one of them is concerned (which in this case is also multiplied by the MWWS factor, without a doubt). There is no point to perpetuate this cycle. With all due respect, Jill is not any more important or notable than any other person murdered in a similar way (which happens rather regularly, even in Australia). Sergey Khantsis (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If extensive media coverage is no longer an indicator of notability, then what on earth is? Since when did we get to decide if media coverage is "warranted" or not? Manning (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of SPA's are muddying the water here. The evening news, by its very definition, is national coverage - the primary claim made for notability, yet not all national news stories are worthy of an encyclopedia article. The reality is, people are not going to be looking up this story years from now, and in the unlikely event I'm mistaken, the article can be written then. In the meantime, the appropriate forum for these story is Wikinews. Rklawton (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have to say keep on this one. A rally of thousands of people down a major road in Melbourne takes this well outside the realm of "just another death" - even if some are unhappy that this was potentially driven by "missing white woman syndrome", that is now just a part of the story (though arguably not an NPOV one). The march and gathering was an unprecendented response in Australia and received wide coverage... like it or not, it's a notable event. --Rob.au (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - The scale of community response to this event is notable in Melbourne's history. Tens of thousands of people walked along Sydney Road in a "Peace March" after the murder of Jill Meagher. See: http://www.theage.com.au/photogallery/national/peace-march-for-jill-meagher-20120930-26ta3.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To all those locals triggered by the article in The Age to now tell us how important this really is because such and such happened, how about you get cracking with your editing and add some well sourced words on such and such to the article? Right now, the article doesn't deserve to be kept. And I'm from Melbourne too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI have already edited parts of the article as it was in dire need of some attention, yes. It is pretty comprehensively connected to the rest of Wikipedpia now, and I have polished some bits and added in more sources. However I have been reluctant to go out of my way on some parts of the story, as the trial starts soon, and I would rather not risk jeopardising it. Fairly sure there will be lots coming out of the trial reports to update the article with. NotherAussie (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Victorian Premier has suggested law reform might be necessary to avoid social media coverage of this event. If such reform is legislated, then this event will not only have been "worthy of notice" by the Victorian Premier, but also by the Victorian Parliament. It will have been an event that directly led to significant law reform in Victoria. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/transcripts/5044-full-transcript-of-premier-ted-baillieus-interview-on-774-abc-melbourne-mornings-with-jon-faine-01-october-2012.html Craig Rowley (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge now I don't know how this could be done though, but certainly the subject being an incident in [Brunswick], and the only reason why the article became notable is because she worked in the media and it was covered by her media colleagues - but the quality and caliber of the media reporters is quite notable! If she was a cashier at the local supermarket then it wouldn't have got an ounce of the media coverage that it did. That said, it raised a lot of awareness of [rape] and victims of rape. The reasoning behind my idea here is that the impact that the media did was important in bringing the awareness to the Australian community. On the other hand - the deletionists should go and check out the thousands of horses that are deemed to be "notable" included in Wikipedia after only winning a minor race. Should they all continue to be listed, then this article should also be a keep as it has made an astounding impact on a community and country and raised unprecedented awareness of the security and safety of women in this community. Thanks for reading.Alvin M. (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a "rally" of any amount of people does not make for notability. Each week there are rallies of all kinds and causes all over the world and they are not noted in Wikipedia. I think the people who are highlighting the rally part and not the end effect - ie parliamentary change or similar, should consider the fact that this in itself is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmusica1 (talk • contribs) 03:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I would agree that a rally in and of itself does not amount to notability. My earlier comment refers to this rally in context. A rally of this size and of this kind is not a normal response in this environment and as the commentor below notes, it is only partially indicactive of why this occurance has become notable. -- Rob.au (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Sure, rallies happen all the time and this rally is only part of the story, but it examplifies all of it. People marched to remember Jill Meagher and they marched to highlight unacceptably high levels of violence against women. If one woman's disappearance and death has that influence, it is a notable event. To the editors who are concerned that we will suddenly experience a spate of articles about ordinary people being killed: let's deal with that when / if it happens.NotherAussie (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creepier thing about this all is that Adam Ernest Bailey will likely get a Wikipedia article written - if he hasn't already got one written already! Alvin M. (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me guessing that you probably meant Adrian Ernest Bayley, the man charged with the rape and murder of Meagher. What makes you think he would get an article? HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the others this would not have been a news item if she were not in the Media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.6.207 (talk • contribs)
— 211.27.6.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similar events that are not temporal and remain in Australian cultural history are Juanita Nielsen (4 July 1975), Karmein Chan (13 April 1991), Caroline Byrne (8 June 1995), Jeanette O'Keefe (2 January 2001), Siriyakorn 'Bung' Siriboon (2 June 2011) and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eiger3970 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could have been a rape and murder of anybody. She was just an average person, but as she worked for the media, the ABC made sure her story was picked up. I do not mind if we keep it, but in the future, we should also be allowed to keep all other wikis on everyday murders. Kelly2357 (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet 30,000 people haven't turned out on the streets of Melbourne in response to any other "everyday murder" (which with only 173 homicides in Victoria in 2011/12 would be better described as an "every second day or so murder"). The Victorian Premier has since expressed a potential to reform the law as a result of the notable scale of interest and thus potential to jeopardise the trial. It is the scale of public and government reaction to the event that makes it a significant event, and thus a topic that is notable, regardless of the occupation of the victim. Craig Rowley (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Kelly2357. This isn't an everyday murder, which the article itself makes clear. Meanwhile, wikipedia does have substantial articles on other (non-everyday) crimes such as (to pick two I have recently edited) the Murder of Anni Dewani and the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, so I'm not sure what your point is. Format (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A notable murder that has led to substantial and likely long-lasting societal impact; not enough time has passed to fairly judge whether WP:NOTNEWS no longer applies (though what constitutes "enough time" is a very vague criterion and I'd argue that enough time has passed to exempt this article), but WP:SIGCOV has been more than adequately addressed and so the article should remain. If the article were simply about Jill Meagher herself, then WP:Notability isn't addressed and I would vote for deletion, but since the article is about the event of her death and its coverage, my vote is a strong keep. Thefamouseccles (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per comments by Colonel Tom, Coastien and doloresdaphne, among others. There were a number of reasons for public interest in the case - including the CCTV footage and that she was taken from Brunswick. I'm sure that Missing white woman syndrome was one factor in the attention it received, but nonetheless it has received that attention, and a strong continuing interest. As someone living in Melbourne and having heard a lot about the case and knowing about the march, I consider the deletion an absurd suggestion that shouldn't have been made. If someone doesn't understand a topic, they should consider suggesting the deletion on the talk page before putting it to AfD. This death is a sensitive issue, and this AfD is not only inappropriate but makes Wikipedia look bad - I hope it can be quickly closed. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: This AfD has been open for 22 days, and there's no sign of consensus for deletion. It's about time to close it, and focus on improving the article. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The reactions to Jill Meagher's disappearance was unprecedented in Australia. The combination of public action and social media was exceptional. My post for Global Voices Online gives some of the impact: Australia: Social Media’s Search for Missing Woman "This week Melbourne has seen what is perhaps its biggest and its saddest social media campaign following the disappearance and alleged rape and murder of Jill Meagher." Too important to delete when living people of much less significance remain. 30,000 people who took to the streets can't be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Rennie (talk • contribs) 2013-01-27T07:23:59
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. KTC (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated orthodontic treatment

Accelerated orthodontic treatment (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 entire article is a mess and is written in an unencyclopedic way. Not notable with no reliable sources. Satellizer talk contribs 01:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:05, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:23, 11 January 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 Red (Taylor Swift album). No prejudice against making this a stand-alone article in the future if enough content is written to justify it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sad Beautiful Tragic

Sad Beautiful Tragic (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)

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:22, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:27, 25 January 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. MBisanz talk 00:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulvia Celica Siguas Sandoval

Fulvia Celica Siguas Sandoval (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 article has been flagged for several years as using a single source, being factually inaccurate and failing to meet notability standards. Nothing has been done to address these issues. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary keep. These are regular editing issues. Notability is noted and being one of the first transexuals in Peru would also seem to add to her notoriety. We need to check the facts, and once established, likely meets notability requirements. I have no time at the moment but I can take a look of no one else does. Also it's likely sourcing is in other languages so that challenge needs to be met. The one source states "Fulvia Celica Siguas Sandoval (Peru) has had 64 surgical operations since December 1979 to complete gender reassignment. Of these, over 25 have been to her face and neck, with other alterations including ear reductions, transformations to her legs and arm liposuction. Fulvia – a transsexual TV clairvoyant – hit the headlines back in 1998 when she registered as mayoral candidate in Lima, Peru. She sadly passed away on 10 September 2004 at home in Lima, Peru." Insomesia (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable, fails to meet GNG. GHits shows the Guinness site, but the rest appear to be blogs, social media, etc. Several GBooks hits, all sourced to Wikipedia. Only 2 GNews hits, one a passing mention (referring to Guinness). No GScholar or JSTOR hits. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 4 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 14:15, 17 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:30, 19 January 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramlal Prabhuji

Ramlal Prabhuji (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 simple google search provides not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I think it meets multiple speedy deletion criteria but I don't think it would do me any good because some one will surely decline it for whatever reason. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence you are supporting delete, right? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:58, 18 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Third extensions of debate are support a detailed rationale of why no call is being made; the 4th extension really should not even happen. Keep this as No Consensus under the principle of WP:NOBODYCARES. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Striking that last part, this is unsourced, unencyclopedic, and promotional in intent. It's unwikified, probably an orphan, and should have been hauled to PROD, where it would have been deleted because WP:NOBODYCARES. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 25 January 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. Tone 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulham Davies

Fulham Davies (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)

Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidlines.Does not cite sufficient and verifiable references.--Ntmg (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable. The only sources cited in the article are a local newspaper obituary, another local newspaper article, and the Social Security Death Index. He sounds like an exemplary citizen, but nothing in the article suggests the kind of individual distinction that qualifies for WP:BIO. I can't find anything else online. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:00, 4 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sounds like this fellow was an outstanding individual who was loved and respected by family and friends and led a full life, but we are not Ancestry.com Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It could be because of age but Google News searches including the alias "Ki", the documentary film and companies (Merrill Lynch and Fenner and Beane) did not provide anything useful. However, a Google Books provided two results (Security dealers of North America and Investor's reader) but they seem to be directories. Although obituaries are often excellent sources for details about a person's life, this article reads too much like a personal biography. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 24 January 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linak

Linak (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)

Contested prod. Appears to be a minor manufacturing company at most, with the usual handful of self-published press releases. Might be savable, but it's not making a good case for notability as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I contested the prod, which was placed by someone mass-tagging Brazilian company articles as spam. Notability doesn't appear to have been a concern of the prodder, whose rationale both times (it was re-prodded after I removed it) was based on calling it advertising. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:37, 4 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 18 January 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. Considering the last two AfD's, the DRV, the lack of delete arguments in this AfD, and being re-listed three times since January 4th, the concluding summary is not a strong enough consensus for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mkdwtalk 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars

AfDs for this article:
The7stars (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 was deleted after AFD1 over concerns over the sourcing and this was reviewed at deletion review. Although the DRV closed as a procedurally correct outcome I am using my discretion as the DRV closer to relist this for more in depth discussion of the sourcing. As this has already been legitiamately closed as delete a non-consensus outcome should default to the status quo, which is having no article. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As i've voted in the past AfDs and because of my expansion of the article, I feel the sourcing is enough to the article to pass notability standards, having multiple articles specifically discussing the company and its accomplishments. This includes sources that are more than just discussions of accepted contracts with other companies, which was a concern in the prior AfD and which I rectified by finding more sources that discussed only the subject in question and nothing else. SilverserenC 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Owl City concert tours

AfDs for this article:
Owl City concert tours (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)

Per WP:NCONCERT, tours need to receive extensive coverage from 3rd party reliable sources. A long indiscriminate list of concert tour dates is not necessary or notable. Its not even navigationally accessible. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 18 January 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia BioTechnology Research Park

Virginia BioTechnology Research Park (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)

WP:GNG, WP:GEOFEAT, not notable. I attempted to find sources for notability, but I was unable to find any. Skrelk (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources (Richmond Times Dispatch, Free Lance Star) as well as some Associated Press coverage of the establishment of this research park as well as some ongoing coverage as it grows. Some of that coverage is already being used as reference material in the article. RadioFan (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Richmond Times Dispatch article are trivial routine coverage of a local business. I don't see any AP articles Skrelk (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Free Lance Star is in another city, and coverage there has been ongoing so that alone demonstrates some interest in this subject beyond the local news. I'm seeing some mentions in the New York Times as well. I recall a mention in Forbes as well. In whole its more than just trivial routine coverage, certainly enough to demonstrate notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Sufficient in-depth coverage by third party sources like the Richmond Times Dispatch and the Free Lance Star suffice. The coverage WP:ROUTINE refers to are "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" in which the coverage in this case is none of. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 5 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:29, 25 January 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robin-Mesh

Robin-Mesh (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 could find no coverage of this software beyond the developers' project page, trivial user-generated content, and an apparent reference here, though I don't have access to the full text to confirm. Seems to fail WP:GNG and the more specific, though non-binding, criteria in WP:NSOFT. Alexrexpvt (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have access to that article. There is a paragraph in the paper on the Robin-Mesh and why it was used for the the investigators' experiments--the open source system allowed them to instrument their router. Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom

Censorship of Regular Show in the United Kingdom (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)

Prodded once but template was removed with no reason given. It was prodded again but I removed it as you can't PROD an article twice. Taking to AfD for the same reasons as the initial one though, "This is completely unreferenced original research and does not pass WP:GNG". Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) In fact, everything in and including this category should probably be deleted seperately too. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not unusual edits at all, UK shows have regular self-edits (and even missing episodes) of American shows to meet basic content regulations, and to be clear, these are edits made locally by the network itself to meet UK standards, not made by a government agency. Not only OR, but definite fancruft, and this can easily be covered by the usual 'some episodes are edited or removed from airing for content in other markets' line in the main article. If the prods are removed on other shows in the Regular Show Censorship category, feel free to put them up here too, along with Censorship of The Amazing World of Gumball in Australia; not a source to be found among any of them (though judging from the creator having profanities in his signature this is going to be a tough nom). Nate • (chatter) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (rationale changed to emphasize editing is self-regulation, not 'censorship' by any government agency)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 11 January 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 Public Relations Society of America. Due to low participation, this redirect may be undone by any editor. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Student Society of America

Public Relations Student Society of America (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)

Subject is adequately covered in the article on the Public Relations Society of America and does not warrant its own article. Suggest a redirect. CorporateM (Talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 4 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:43, 18 January 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:27, 25 January 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. j⚛e deckertalk 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderboss

Spiderboss (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)

Seems to fail WP:CORP. I can find no mention of this company in the usual places (Google News, Scholar, &c.), and the article itself makes no real claim to notability. Even the company's own web site has disappeared. Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:44, 18 January 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 ♪ 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Stevens (wrestler)

Barry Stevens (wrestler) (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 anonymous editor 68.200.222.137, who posted their rationale at WT:AFD. That rationale is reproduced below. On the merits.... honestly, looking at the references, it's hard to see a case for keeping this one. Obviously, per WP:USUAL, if Stevens finds himself on more cards (and gets more coverage as a result), an article might end up being appropriate. We're not there yet, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject only appeared once on television and hasn't been heard from since, yet he has an article despite not being notable whatsoever. 68.200.222.137 (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 14:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other that being fodder for establishing Ryback's persona there is nothing to else to say about him. There were also several other wrestlers that had these types of matches with Ryback so it may be a good idea to see if there are other articles for wrestlers that are only know for losing to Ryback.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's as may be, though it doesn't make this person more or less notable. But if you have a list of these, post them at the discussion on WT:AFD and we can have a look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a list myself so that was why I was brought it up so someone more knowledgable than myself could look into it.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 06:33, 5 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:36, 25 January 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 Scoring the Deal. The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Abrams Team

The Abrams Team (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 company which seems to be pinning notability on association with a new reality TV show (that hasn't yet) screened. Only references are not independent and there do not appear any reliable sources about the company. NtheP (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable and reliable sources on The Abrams Team and its association with the reality show "Scoring the Deal" https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1g-WTa06xbcTDRsTms3aFp3QTg/edit http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/01/02/celebrity-broker-discusses-sport-y-role-on-new-hgtv-show-video/ https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1g-WTa06xbcRUFabWNXZ3NhWDQ/edit http://news.yahoo.com/hgtvs-scoring-deal-cape-cods-priciest-properties-220000090.html http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/01/02/celebrity-broker-discusses-sport-y-role-on-new-hgtv-show-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffany1gr (talk • contribs) 21:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/realestate/all-eyes-on-the-ball-not-the-condos.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.224.201 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 12:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scoring the Deal

Scoring the Deal (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 TV series - yet to screen. No independent sources in article and g search only shows press release type hits. NtheP (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independant of HGTV: ESPN episode preview: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/trending/post/_/id/12496/scoring-the-deal-finds-homes-for-athletes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiffany1gr (talk • contribs) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/realestate/all-eyes-on-the-ball-not-the-condos.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.200.224.201 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 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. Courcelles 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ontoforce

Ontoforce (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 startup company doesn't appear notable per WP:CORP. Only claim of notability in article is "second place in Vacature magazine’s top 10 of young Flemish technology companies", which I don't think is enough. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a startup. They deserve a place on Wikipedia imho because I believe in their ideas. Do you have tips to make sure this page won't be deleted? Zofie_be (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 4 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:17, 11 January 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 Davis Langdon & Seah . MBisanz talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Langdon & Seah

Langdon & Seah (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)

Run of the mill company and spamish. Also, Wikipedia is not a business directory. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Davis Langdon & Seah should be deleted at well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge here. They're a company with a 79 year history in various guises[32], and there's press coverage in English[33][34][35][36] but since their business has been done in S and E Asia since the 1930s, much coverage will be either in other languages or in non-internet sources. The corporate history is a little confusing, but they now seem to be separate from Davis Langdon (which is now part of AECOM). L&S are now owned by Arcadis, and it could be merged there except Arcadis don't have a Wikipedia page (there's only one for their subsidiary Arcadis UK). --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 18 January 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. Notability concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 05:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naaptol.com

Naaptol.com (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'm not entirely sure, but I don't believe this is notable. It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. There are no significant media mentions except for a single India times article. Given that this is apparently the third creation of this article after it was previously speedied twice for being promotional, I believe this article is being created for promotional purposes. Skrelk (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not agree with above comment and we should Keep this article on Wikipedia. Naaptol.com is one of the top online retail website in India so it should be noted on any encyclopedia.
Moreover the reference they have cited in this article is absolutely reliable and credible one reference is from Moneycontrol.com which is noted on Wikipedia itself with the name CNBC-TV18 and is one of the largest news house in India. The second reference is from The Economic Times which is again a very reputed source. The third source Iamwire is not much known or reputed source but the information i have got from Alexa.com about Iamwire.com [37] is good , it has ranking of 7,629 in India and Reputation of 121. Lastly, we should not judge any moderator from his/her previous failures. Mukulsaurabh (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Skrelk, I appreciate your comment posted on the article but this article is not posted for promotional purpose at all. This content totally gives information about naaptol which many people may be searching for, as naaptol.com comes under top 12 best online shopping websites in india [38]. As far as single media is concerned that is India times article, i believe Moneycontrol.com also comes under top trusted websites in india which also has listing on Wikipedia. However i have also included some more media source in the article which are independent of the site itself and meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. I also appreciate comment posted by Mukulsaurabh on judging a person on his previous failures. I think you should Keep this article because Wikipedia is only a source from where users can get right and genuine information on almost everything and article posted on naaptol.com should be a part of it. --Webmaster.gitesh (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know whether I am eligible to become part of this discussion and post comment on this article but also wondering that why there is no information on Wikipedia about Naaptol similar to Jabong.com, Flipkart.com and others as all of these are india’s top online shopping portals and Wikipedia must provide information about these portals. I have read this information thoroughly with comment posted by Skrelk. According to me Wikipedia should Keep this article which I think is not promotional.--182.73.48.26 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sock-puppetry here is blindingly obvious and disgraceful. All keep voters have same broken English, same editing style and same contributions range - this AFD, their own user pages and the article in question. WP:QUACK! I won't even bother lodging an SPI - that would be an insult to CU and the closing admin here. Stalwart111 05:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The three almost-identical, LinkedIn-style user pages say it all, really. LOL. Stalwart111 06:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did lodge an SPI, but it was closed as looking more like COI Skrelk (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the three might together also have a WP:COI. Happy to help lodge another SPI but I don't think it's needed - it's so obvious that the closer can't possibly take their !votes into account (vote-stack fail!) and it's limited to this article (all are WP:SPAs) so once it goes, they should also. If not, happy to help with another SPI if you wish. But we should, then, also ask for the title to be salted. Stalwart111 07:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better start, though three of those are from the same source (Business Standard, actually two are the same article). I'm 50/50 about the IndiaRetailing one and the HBL one that profiles a whole bunch of companies. But that goes a good way towards WP:CORPDEPTH. Now to deal with the COI/sock-puppetry. Stalwart111 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Stalwart, I am quite sure you'll get more sources using these search options:
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Actually I was reading the day's AFD nominations and felt very much surprised when I saw the comments "Napptol" is not notable. And I was/am trying to answer that part only. I have no comment on sock-puppetry, COI etc. --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) one more from ET. Tito Dutta (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understand that - entirely fair enough. I did look for sources but couldn't find much. The other issues aren't reasons for deletion anyway - just poor form. The ones you found, as I said, get us much closer to CORPDEPTH. It's always ironic when COI editors think the best way of saving their article is to vote-stack, and then they do it so badly! In reality, the work you did has a much better chance of saving it than all that nonsense. Great work! I've changed my !vote above - we still need to deal with the other stuff and the article needs work. Any chance you know enough about the subject to clean up the article? Stalwart111 04:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the first draft here Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Naaptol.com (sorry I have too many subpages under my userpage already and my sandbox is busy). BTW, I am confused, in an Economic Times article wrote Naaptol is/was India's largest e-commerce shopping website (though it was only one line, see ref and details in "Recognitions" section in talk page). But, if it is really the largest e-commerce website of the world's 7th largest country, then it should help to pass the barrier of WP:GNG at least. Is not it? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, a very good start. As long as the "biggest in India" claim is sourced and the phrasing avoids WP:BIGNUMBER-style arbitrary comparisons, then yeah (again, in my opinion) it should be fine. Agree, it goes some way toward WP:N. I wouldn't want to base a notability case on that alone, but along with the sources you've found it's looking good. Stalwart111 08:35, 12 January 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, MBisanz talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Tito Dutta's sources help towards WP:CORPDEPTH, though the "biggest in India" claim doesn't appear to be well sourced, seeming to be multiple repeats of one remark. Many of the online mentions are in lists of similar companies in India - just quickly picking a couple: Hindustan Times, Sept 2011: "eBay, Amazon, Homeshop18, Infibeam, Naaptol and Rediff Shopping are the top six shopping cart sites", and GoFoolish (not sure this is a reliable source), Nov 2012: "Mumbai ... Mostly copycat startups : Example naaptol, inkfruit, myntra etc". Now, I note that we have articles on all those other companies mentioned,(*) so Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is relevant and taken with the other evidence suggests that we probably should have an article on naaptol for consistency.
(*) We have had articles on HomeShop18 since Nov 10, Infibeam since Jun 11, Inkfruit since Mar 09 (currently up for its second AfD having survived one in Jun 10), Myntra.com since Nov 11, and Rediff.com since Jun 04.  —SMALLJIM  14:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep.Paasable, but not good.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 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 Sunil Kumar Verma. MBisanz talk 17:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wo desh ki beti

Wo desh ki beti (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 poem written by a scientist who, although marginally notable, is not noted as a poet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 5 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 18 January 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. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 21:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management of Sri Lanka

Institute of Management of Sri Lanka (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 assertion of notability. needs sources as fails WP:GN / WP:ORG Widefox; talk 21:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I am not very fond of all local schools and colleges of South Asia finding its way into Wikipedia (see my tagging of some Pakistani colleges), but this institution seems to be a national body established by a legislative act of Sri Lankan parliament (text here: [39] and here: [40]). Its claims to international affiliations seems true as seen e.g. here: [41]. It has been mentioned in Sri Lankan press (e.g., [42], and membership of the Institute finds its way onto CVs of senior management: [43]. If insufficiently sourced, relevant tags need to be added. kashmiri 16:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I did substantial copyedit, now the article should look cleaner, albeit not perfect. kashmiri 11:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[44] appears to be a press release, so not independent (no author is claimed, no guarantee of editorial control), so doesn't count as a WP:RS. There's still no secondary source, so fails WP:ORG. I doubt issues such as being a national body are relevant for notability. Widefox; talk 09:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 5 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are national professional bodies intrinsically notable? (I only know about secondary schools). There's no secondary source still for meeting WP:ORG. Widefox; talk 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not intrinsically notable, no. Depends what they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
..then if we rely on coverage in secondary sources per WP:ORG right? Where are they? Widefox; talk 18:17, 25 January 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. MBisanz talk 17:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alta Ventures Mexico

AfDs for this article:
Alta Ventures Mexico (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)

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY for WP:CORP. Has some links but trivial coverage or mentions fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" WP:GNG Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Milenio article is about Alta Ventures because they made it to the finals, not merely a list that just happens to include them, which could be the case for the finalists announcement itself. Also, it's not just a list: it may not be a major award but it isn't trivial either, and being a finalist carries a little weight. I could agree that it's not a supersource, but we can't just dismiss it simply because it fits a generic pattern. All these sources are independent, and Techcrunch and WSJ at least provide significant coverage; they allow us to see how the subject is becoming notable (in both the common sense and WP's sense of the word), and they also provide enough content so that no original research is required to build an article.
I was able to find some additional sources that provide significant coverage [46] [47] [48] [49] (although I'm on the fence on whether pulsosocial.com meets WP:RS). Also note the many hits that reproduce or reference the $70MD fund announcement ("possibly the largest such VC fund in Mexico’s history" [50]), and the company and/or its founders get mentioned as relevant players in articles discussing VC initiatives in Latin America [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] — Frankie (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These are only supposed to be relisted a maximum of 3 times, please make a call. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a delete for me - such coverage as there is doesn't seem significant in the context of encyclopedic notability. ---- nonsense ferret 01:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non-notable company. Werieth (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears that the Dow Jones article [56], Techcrunch article [57], both WSJ articles [58] [59], and three Gigaom articles [60] [61] with a mention here[62] provide enough significant coverage to meet the following guidelines of the GNG as follows, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Additional notable news includes the IBM developerWorks interview[63] and main stream Mexico press[64] [65] mentioned above. Additional qualifying news articles from notable Mexico publications require a log in to access the articles. Alta Ventures has preserved these articles in PDF format on their website. The GNG says: "Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English." The following articles published in El Norte meet both of these requirements. The cover article in the business section of El Norte [66] alone should qualify as significant coverage. The other three articles mention Alta Ventures and its programs.[67][68][69] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.61.189 (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — 76.21.61.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"Paul Ahlstrom" and his departure from VSpring, and incidental mentions are not significant and fail both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.--Hu12 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. The foundations are there for some probable notability in the future, and to a certain extent the idea of a venture capital firm operating in Mexico is a novel one. But in general, after having gone over all the sources in the article I feel that we are lacking more in-depth coverage of the company itself, instead of generally of the state of that industry in Mexico. The mentions by Gigaom and TechCrunch are at best routine, since they'll publish articles on anything with the letters 'VC' in them, and the rest of the coverage I'm seeing is a mix of press releases and non-reliable sources doing very superficial coverage of the founder(s). I agree with the nominator that this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organization is in a new VC industry and has in a short amount of time made significant achievements and received sufficient notable coverage to merit creating and sustaining a page. The company coverage both from US and Mexico sources gives it WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:TOOSOON requirements do not state that a company be establish for any length of time only that topics and sources exist. I see no current mention of press releases on the company page only independent articles from CNN, IBM, Forbes, TechCrunch, Gigaom and DowJones and Mexico press which collectively meet and satisfy the requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.242.186 (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC) — 63.199.242.186 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 2013 in sports. Courcelles 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International sports calendar 2013

International sports calendar 2013 (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)

Creation after the decision to merge te article International sports calendar 2012 into 2012 in sports. The user creating this new article is perfectly aware of that decision, as he participated in the previous discussion (as I did also). - Nabla (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CCC + the formatting here is different and tackles the issue in the last one that it was messy. It is now more easily organised. Despise OSE, see the various political leders "by tenure"/"by..." Likewise, this is chronological reference, while the other is "by sport". This is also more organised than that as it lists more data like the winnersLihaas (talk) 02:53, 8 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment notified 4 users involved in editing the 2012 pageq.Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in sports per above comment. Frankly, I don't see what the point of this page is, and, seeing as "2013 in sports" should cover all of this, it's very redundant, though I am happy to see that curling as a sport was covered. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its more comprehensive that that. How about proposal merging that INTO this? Title is better and format.Lihaas (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to merge a smaller article into a larger one? Besides, you can make edits on the 2013 in sports article to add comprehensiveness, including adding what you've done here. Format is a nonessential issue in that sense. I feel that the "2013 in sports" is simple and adequate. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the title here is better and more consistent (a la the election calendar). The scope of the other article is much too broad to include non-professional sports as well. You know how big that page can get for domestic and sub-domestic titles? That is liable to be incomplete forever.Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 15 January 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. After four (!) relists the consensus is in favour of keeping. Michig (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Velvetpark

Velvetpark (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 10-year old Lesbian/Feminist magazine. I came across this while editing an article about a leading lesbian activist. Velvetpark's website links to the Wikipedia article, so it appears they're using it as an extension of their publicity. Grace Moon, the publisher, seems to be the author here. I've searched for secondary coverage about Velvetpark online but can't find anything of significance. Because they claim to be read on five continents I think its only fair to launch an AfD rather than Speedy Delete. Currently fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom statement, internet search reveals no credible notability of the subject in any major (or minor) sense. Sionk's analysis of failing WP:NCORP is correct, and should serve as the rationale for deletion. -T.I.M(Contact) 22:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I think there are enough sources to pull together a good short article but I'm not sure how interesting it would be and who will do the work. There are cites to notable contributors, some articles, and even the court case(s) but I'm not sure that's enough. Keep per improvements and sourcing. Insomesia (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The wrangling with the US Patent office over the use of dyke in their byline as well as their hosting of the writings of a closeted West Point cadet both were covered in reliable sources, making this magazine meet WP:GNG. Gobōnobō + c 02:00, 6 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient coverage to show notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is a curious case: the argument for retention seems to be that being not-quite-notable in several different ways makes something notable.
(1) The "dyke" controversy receives the most passing of passing mentions on a blog, and a paragraph or two in an article in Comparative Hungarian Cultural Studies. The article's discussion of the magazine seems to be based on the magazine's own web site. Only the sacred gravity of An Academic Journal gives this superficial plausibility, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP presents a fairly nuanced view of how scholarly articles should be used, and I'm not quite sure that the article, in this specific context rather than in general, is reliable enough to establish notability.
(2) Contagious notability: the magazine had a famous employee, therefore the company is notable. Evidence? A few passing mentions. But WP:ORGSIG.
(3) Its "renowned" awards, and here the evidence seems to be something that's tantamount to a press release in SheWired. Alexrexpvt (talk) 06:44, 11 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look notable or encyclopedic to me - seems to be no more than a small footnote in the coverage mentioned. ---- nonsense ferret 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Big enough web footprint for me, I favor a low bar for journals and publications regardless of ideology or content. This is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should cover. Existence confirmed and verifiability is satisfactory; the fact is that publications do not often write about their competitors, which makes finding so-called reliable sources more difficult than it should be. Sticklers for policy-based rationales can file this under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 19 January 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. Scottdale Inferno → Professional Inline Hockey Association#Teams, San Jose Pirates → American Inline Hockey League#Teams (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottdale Inferno

Scottdale Inferno (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)

Short stubby article with no references that indicate notability

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

San Jose Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JayJayTalk to me 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:37, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iveta Mukuchyan

Red X I withdraw my nomination

Iveta Mukuchyan (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 sound notable at all. She didn't win either reality show she was on and sources are very weak. Mabalu (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:33, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Dixon (economic writer)

Daryl Dixon (economic writer) (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)

Unnotable person, article is still an orphan three years after creation. Article is an autobiography, created by and and sourced to the subject. Every word in the article was written by User:Dixon Advisory and it looks like an ad for his company. Barsoomian (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he has a recent article in The Australian referred to here [70] (paywalled), and his financial advice appears to be the topic of 3 articles in the Australian Financial Review over 3 years(AFR search). Whilst not a reliable source his about page on his website should allow the identification of RS for many elements of his CV. A Trove search for books lists 44 publications, a number of which are published by notable publishers (e.g. Dixon, Daryl (2012), Securing your superannuation future : how to start and run a self-managed super fund, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-7303-7778-8). -- Paul foord (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the article has now been edited to make it more encyclopedic, more work required. Found lots of publications at Trove. I note the late addition of the WP:COI to the nomination. --Paul foord (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did just add WP:COI explicitly here, but the COI template has been, appropriately, on the article since 2010. Barsoomian (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think the article addresses the concerns raised. I think there are more than enough RS proving notability. Just found 3 columns in the Sydney Morning Herald in their supplement on the 1998 Mini-Budget by Daryl Dixon, Labor's strategy opens way for flat tax system, Tax reform on the cheap and Mortgage-holder the losers, (13 April 1989), Sydney Morning Herald, p. 2s -- Paul foord (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that every cited reference is written by Dixon. There is nothing independent about him. No reviews, for example. Barsoomian (talk)
I think he fits here Notability Creative_professionals 'The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications.' Paul foord (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote three articles in a newspaper in 1989 (not '98). That's "significant"? Mark me unconvinced, but it's up to the closer. Barsoomian (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see this link and this link Paul foord (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have recently made some additional edits to the Daryl Dixon (economic writer) page. I agree with Paul foord in that there is still a fair bit to update given the quantum of references and sources to Daryl Dixon. For starters I found 65 articles written by Daryl Dixon in the AFR Smart Investor magazine http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com, how would you suggest referencing these? Also he writes for the Canberra Times weekly however there are only 30 articles available on the net. Pete441 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:14, 11 January 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. No quorum. No prejudice against speedy renomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Mastiff

American Mastiff (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)

Delete - No secondary sources except for a passing mention in a book on English Mastiffs and a children's writing activities book. Not notable. TKK bark ! 17:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the 'American Mastiff Club' and most sources discussing American mastiffs are in reference to mastiffs that are american, as opposed to this dog. --TKK bark ! 17:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:53, 4 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis Be

Genesis Be (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)

Contested prod. Genesis Be fails WP:BIO; there is a lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to assert her notability. The references present in the article are either blogs, dead links, or don't mention the subject at all. — ξxplicit 01:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrajenn: I've removed or replaced dead links or links that do not mention subject at all. I've also deleted statements that may be deemed subjective or promoting the subject rather than have a neutral tone. Please review again and offer any other corrections that may need to be done in order to make the page valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrajenn (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 18 January 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. MBisanz talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Byrne

Patricia Byrne (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)

Patricia Byrne promoting Patricia Byrne and her books. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 12:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant self-promotion of a non-notable author. Snappy (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm seeing some hits in Google Books where some of her writings are used as resources for books. I don't know how much that counts for, though. I did do a cleanup of the article, removing a lot of stuff that wasn't really sourced with stuff about her or her works as well as moving the two reviews I was able to find for one of her books currently up for AfD to this article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:01, 5 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Apparently a self bio which originally was spamming ISBN numbers for books written by the subject. When are we going to wake up and eliminate these commercial bar code numbers from Wikipedia? There is no legitimate, necessary reason for ISBN numbers at WP... Carrite (talk) 03:03, 11 January 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. No evidence presented that this company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Holdings Group

Merlin Holdings Group (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 company per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If a company, probably largely owned by its founder Keith Cozens, can afford to lose £190M, it must have substantila assets. However I am far from sure of the article's merits, particualrly as the founder's article is merely a redirect to the company. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 5 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! I agree with the comment above. Any company that HAS, let alone can survive after losing £190,000.000.00 must be notable in my view. Also to have articles in 'Time Magazine' and the 'Financial Times' gives it Extra Clout. A little research found the 'Merlin' brand to be run along the same lines as 'Virgin' with many satellite companies. However unlike 'Virgin' does not seek publicity and keeps a low profile. My interpretation is it passes WP:CORP. After all this site is for Reference and Research. However this article does need expanding. Deangunn (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did your research turn up actual references to the company anywhere? The Guardian for example, one of the offered vague references, returns zero recognition for either the name of the company or its founder. AllyD (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless information can be verified. The references are generic website URLs, searches of those sites don't return anything relevant, and I haven't been able to find any information about this company. If I've identified the founder correctly he appears to be director of a small property business in the UK, and that information is probably derived from Companies House records; maybe there is a link to a larger company or group but I couldn't find it. Also for a company to be a suitable topic for Wikipedia, significant coverage is required, not just mentions of large amounts of money. Peter James (talk) 22:39, 14 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:27, 26 January 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. Courcelles 00:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollygood

Bollygood (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 seem to meet WP:ORG. Very few available sources and the BBC source is about a fundraiser and record attempt than the charity Mkdwtalk 09:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:09, 4 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One-off Guinness World Record breaking attempt with no lasting social significance. Congrats for the good effort for a good cause, but this is a GNG failure, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 11 January 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. Consensus to keep following relisting The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Small Industries Corporation

National Small Industries Corporation (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)

Multiple recreations, by it's own admission it has a main purpose to promote small businesses, Maybe I'm off base here but I believe that this might warrant coverage under the main government page but think that it fails gng for a standalone article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:54, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have done major additions and improvement to the article.Jethwarp (talk) 06:37, 21 January 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. Three relistings. no consensnus. Time to close this, feel free to bring it back after a spell Courcelles 00:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue

Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (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)

Based on this organization's stated goals and missions, it should be notable, but I can find no coverage in independent sources to draw on. The organization has placed itself on lots of other websites -- memberships in other international organizations, listings in various directories, etc., but no independent significant coverage of their activities. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google News archives found several results and the links including this one and this one suggest they are most active in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I'm not an expert with this subject but it seems they may be notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If people are using Google to judge notability then I wish they would use the searches most likely to find reliable sources, i.e. start with Scholar, then go to Books, News archive and only as a desperate last resort use a general web search. By following such a common-sense strategy I found two cast-iron reliable sources within a minute: doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2004.00025.x and ISBN 9780313375774 pp. 114–116 et al., but they are only the tip of the iceberg of readily available reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I used to live and work in Geneva and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue is a place I frequently visited for discussions, and workshops related to humanitarian practice. So it's definitely real and relevant. Regarding reliable sources, you can find their publications quoted on Swisspeace.ch and here. When you Google the name of these publications you'll see that they are being quoted and used by many humanitarian organizations. Timoluege (talk) 18:31, 8 January 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:55, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:10, 11 January 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. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AppGreen Marketplace

AppGreen Marketplace (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 software and a bit spamish and adding to WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:47, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Refs provided have vague editorial policies and authorship information, and appear to accept payment in exchange for reviews, and are thus not RS; created by an SPA as likely spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:00, 18 January 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 Melodifestivalen 2013. If the person's only claim to notability is appearing in a content that ***hasn't even happened yet*** then that's a pretty obvious note that they're not individually notable .... yet. And per precedent, even appearing in such an event doesn't confer notability anyway. However, assuming AGF there is a possibility this person may become notable at some point and it's not unreasonable to assume her name may be a search term ... therefore, redirecting to keep the history. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Olsson

Felicia Olsson (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 performer who has not yet made her debut so seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Creator removed PROD and notability tags so taking to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her spot in Melodifestivalen 2013 indicates her notability as a singer.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the ONLY reason? I was under the impression that singers and performers need extensive third-party coverage to demonstrate their notability. A single spot in a single festival doesn't sound sufficient. Mabalu (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have nothing against a redirect to an appropriate article (Melodifestivalen 2013?) until such time as the individual achieves additional notability in her own right, but right now a full article seems WP:TOOSOON. If she does go on to represent Sweden at Eurovision then that's notable, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mabalu (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know how familiar you are with Melodifestivalen. But usually being involved with that show is notable as it is the most watched show on swedish television and you have to have had some sort of recognition by the music community to appear on the show. Redirecting it now just to create it again in a months time is a waste of time and effort. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem to be what WP:Rollback is for. Notability achieved? Rollback the redirect because no text is lost. Doesn't sound like too much effort. If she is going to be so notable though, it seems strange that nobody else has shown a faintest bit of interest in the fate of the article... Mabalu (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, where are the sources? The only sources are one that actually calls her "an unknown", and a list of who's appearing in the show (I've not checked, but do all the other 20-odd perfomers also have WP articles? I have randomly checked a few and apart from Swedish House Wives, they did have articles, BUT also showed evidence of notability. I have no doubt that Felicia Olsson will be there in a few years time, but for now, a redirect, which can be easily reversed at an appropriate time, seems logical. Right now, she doesn't appear to pass any of the requirements for musical notability, which seem pretty rigorous. Mabalu (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the ridiculous amount of press and viewers Melodifestivalen gets and the role it plays in Sweden, I'd be tempted to see performing there as an indication of notability in itself. However, whether one agrees with that or not, the article need reliable third-party sources, not as a way to point at notability, but because the entry needs to be verifiable. I don't know if I'd call the sources and links gathered in the article so far sufficient. /Julle (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should the article be deleted/redirected, however, I'd want to argue that the conclusion of this disucssion shouldn't be that the article should be kept deleted or redirected unless a new AfD discussion reaches another conclusion: it's likely that more will be written about her in the near future. /Julle (talk) 20:05, 13 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:08, 11 January 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, ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, within just a few weeks Olsson will have met the WP:NMUSIC criterias 1, 10,11 and 12. Deleting this article now is truly a waste of time. Secondly, Mentoz notion that performing in Melodifestivalen confers no notability is wrong. My say of Keep has not changed. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason why turning the article into a redirect is appropriate at this point in time. The redirect can then, with the click of a button, be speedily reverted to the previous version of the article at such a time, when, and IF, Miss Olsson gains notability. No text need be lost - just temporarily stored. Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:CRYSTAL, BabbaQ? Your opinion that performing in Melodifestivalen confers notability, is not supported by any notability guideline, and most important: this topic blantantly fails WP:GNG. Regarding Mabalu's point of redirecting instead of deleting - I don't see any reason why some non-notable singer's name, who performed in the semi-final of the yearly Melodifestivalen, should be redirected to Melodifestivalen, and a deleted article can also be restored with a click of a buttom (though only by admins). Mentoz86 (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to that competition just like we do with others like Idol. No notability shown outside this contest. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. BabbaQ's one line non policy based keep once again adds nothing here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare Idol and Melodifestivalen.. then you obviously dont follow Melodifetivalen (talk about not adding anything to the discussion). But I let the closing admin who hopefully will have a clue about Melodifestivalen decide this.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 23 January 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 Courcelles 00:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEAR Video

GEAR Video (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)

Hi. This article is about a discontinued software product that does not meet WP:GNG requirements. I tried to look for it on the web but the search results were extremely discouraging. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:52, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:07, 11 January 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. MBisanz talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some Kind of Miracle (song)

Some Kind of Miracle (song) (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 about an album track fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. An analysis of the 10 sources proves this:

  • Source 1 is a dead link and thus fails WP:V, and cannot be counted towards establishing notability.
  • Source 2 is a primary source and thus fails to establish notability.
  • Source 3 contains one sentence about the track and is therefore not significant coverage.
  • Sources 4 and 5 are inaccessible and are therefore unable to establish notability. contain no significant coverage.
  • Sources 7 and 8 cite Discogs, an unreliable source, and contain absolutely no coverage of the track.
  • Sources 6, 9 and 10 are much like source 3; routine, trivial mentions that do not contain significant coverage to prove notability. Till 13:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources do not have to be freely available online, so sources 1, 4 and 5 can't be dismissed in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. I retrieved source 5 from Wayback Machine, and it contains this line "'Some Kind Of Miracle' is a 21st century Bangles". That's at most a trivial mention. As for source 4, the source is still inaccessbile, so I can't really judge on that yet. Still sorting out source 1. If it ends up to be a trivial mention, I'm afraid that this article will have to be deleted or merged as lacking notability. Till 00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already, per nom. It's clear after two relists that no one has come to the rescue, nor found any sources to save this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – What appears to be notable about this song is that a large number of reviewers, when writing about the album Sounds of the Underground, singled out this song for commentary, so I wouldn't view that as "routine" coverage. Certainly it's not the most notable track on the album, and if just a couple of reviewers wrote something brief about this track, it would not warrant a separate article. But there's enough here to squeak by our guidelines for inclusion. I've added several more reviews just now. Each of them is brief coverage, but brief does not always equate to "trivial" coverage, especially when there are so many music critics commenting briefly about the song. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The track was reviewed as part of the album, and each review contains no more than one sentence. That's not significant coverage. Unless sources that directly address the song in detail, rather than short, trivial mentions as part of an album review are brought forward, this topic should not have a standalone article. Till 02:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I'm not all that sure. Again, I'm not automatically going to dismiss short coverage as "trivial" simply because it is short, especially when there are quite a range of sources. The implication I suppose in what you are saying is that I added "trivia" to the article, but I don't think I did. I expanded the "Critical reception" section with each source, which is a fairly standard thing for articles about songs. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual practice to notify the main contributor/author of the article when initiating an AfD. I'm not sure if there was a reason it was not done in this case. I went ahead and notified the article creator. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:44, 6 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:07, 11 January 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. NPASR Courcelles 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space City (newspaper)

Space City (newspaper) (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)

Little Notability on its own as an underground newspaper that ran for 3 years.

Should be deleted and redirected to Thorne Webb Dreyer which already has a large subsection for Space City. Does add notability to Thorne Webb Dreyer as one of his many projects. PeterWesco (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:06, 11 January 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. KTC (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GatherSpace

GatherSpace (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:CORPDEPTH--does not have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are sources but most are press releases, blogs, or passing mentions. A Google News search did not turn up much more. Promotional article by now-blocked editor. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:35, 2 January 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, JayJayWhat did I do? 00:32, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - four re-lists? I'll bite. As the nominator suggests, many of the sources aren't really reliable sources. Of those that are, some seem to be more focussed on the creator and his "vision" rather than the company itself. I think we would need more in terms of quality "significant coverage" to substantiate WP:CORPDEPTH. This sort of thing is good, but this sort of thing is basically worthless as a source for conferring notability. Quite a few of the sources seem to have been prompted by one particular announcement which doesn't really suggest "depth" to me - short term quantity over longer term quality. Another one of these, "what's the CORP version of BLP1E?", cases. Stalwart111 03:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AfDs are not supposed to be relisted more than three times. Somebody needs to make a call. No opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. With that said, the second relist was only nine hours after the first relist. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Commercial spam. I would like to document the timeless prose, however: "GatherSpace is a California-based company that provides on-demand tools to manage customer requirements." Sounds like an exceptional enhancement of user-consumer recipient mechanisms. Shit, if you're gonna spam for yourself, at least make it coherent... Carrite (talk) 02:45, 25 January 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. Cleanup to include only songs which have been specifically written to talk about the city ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about cities

List of songs about cities (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)

Far too loose a criterion for inclusion. People sing about towns all the time. Also, a song can have a city in the title but not really be about it (for instance, "Dallas" by Alan Jackson is actually about a woman named Dallas, and only mentions the town in passing). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cleanup but don't delete - Songs with articles about cities, specifically Cities by Talking Heads are missing and only hits are really named. Maybe the article should only contain songs that are about the city instead of just ones that mention them. Also all songs about cities should be included, not just hits. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing defining nor encyclopedic about about a list of songs which mentions animals, booze or cities. Wichita Lineman is NOT about Wichita (think about it!!!) and Hong Kong Garden is about a chinese restaurant (says so in this list), yet that's two of the entries here. WP:AFG denies me the chance to say what I really think about this kind of list. But on the plus side at least it's not a category. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As a list, this is no more notable than Lists of songs with personal names. I can't see how WP:NLIST can be used to support a keep as it uses the words "discussed as a group." I can't find where songs about cities has been discussed... published perhaps, but that is not discussion but a very clever publisher pitching to the shallower end of the reading public. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJayWhat did I do? 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Delete. As the nom points out, the fact that a song mentions a city doesn't mean that the song is about the city. The way we know a song is about a city is to find reliable sources that say it is -- not by Wikipedia editors analyzing the lyrics themselves. This article lists almost 400 songs (not even counting the songs on separate lists for individual cities). Yet no more than five of them have sources cited in order to ascertain that the song really is about that city. I think this is an interesting topic, but I can't recommend a "keep" unless it looks like this article is going to be limited to songs identified by reliable sources as being about particular cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The whole thing belongs someplace else, not WP. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts, not musings on connections between one thing and another. Which is fun and perhaps productive but not "encyclopedic." (Is that word even used outside of WP?) You might as well have a list of "Sad songs" or "Rebellious songs" or whatever you want. Borock (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making this a "delete" recommendation because the improvements to this article during the AfD have not addressed my concern that most of the songs are not cited to reliable sources which state that the song is indeed about the city. For example, "The Heart of Rock & Roll" is listed as being a song about Cleveland, when in fact the song mentions 14 different cities, of which Cleveland is the 13th. Maybe there should be an article titled Songs about cities which could be based on this article's lead section, but this list is too uncited to keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a source which explicitly discusses the association of songs with cities and gives "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" as an example. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this example and so you are certainly wrong in suggesting that reliable sources do not exist. You just haven't looked, have you? Warden (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not personal opinion and to claim so when I have stated which policies and guidelines support is disparagement and offensive. I have quoted WP Policy and Guidelines, including precedent. The songwriters book would also say use a name in your title, but Lists of songs with personal names has already been deleted as non-notable and equates precisely with this list. WP:LISTN does NOT say published, it says "discussed as group or set." These are the reasons you say "keep." Nobody has managed to answer my short but pertinent question, " At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" - maybe I can think it through and change my view and support changes in policy, guidelines and precedent. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of songs with personal names is a stale example because it's six years old. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about bicycles for a more recent example which resulted in Keep. Warden (talk) 13:27, 14 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some places have so many songs about them they have their own articles. I count 28 listed here, such as List of songs about Melbourne, and List of songs about Jerusalem. Just search for the words "list of songs about" and you can find them all. I'm sure all these places have some coverage about some of the songs about them. Anyway, Warden found some books that cover the topic. The number of blue links to the notable songs and the other list articles makes it a valid list article also. Dream Focus 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Links? Very few blue links to songs in the Melbourne list (quite a few to places in Melbourne and no guarantees that we are not referring to some other Melbourne, physical or otherwise), which makes it an editorial catatrophe. At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? It's trivia, pure and simple, and no editor has even come close to proving otherwise. Can you do better? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is surprising. Anyway, we're talking about this list now. There are blue links to actual songs, notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, in this list, plus a link to 28 other similar list in it. Aids in navigation, so meets the requirements for a list article. See WP:LIST. Dream Focus 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? Not quite playing the game if you mention the Melbourne list as a validation for this article and then say "anyway, we're are talking about this list now." --Richhoncho (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant links to other Wikipedia articles, makes the list useful. There are thousands of list articles like this one, always have been, and always will be. And the same arguments usually happen in these things. A bunch of people say "I don't like it", Warden finds some book references showing its a notable topic, and it ends in keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure for a stunning example of that happening. Dream Focus 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, neither you nor Warden have been able to go beyond WP:LIST which says there has to be a discussion and when that fails you say "navigation," so for a third time, I ask you, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" No more ducking and diving, other stuff exists and I cannot see the relevance of beards - shaved or otherwise.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUMSHOP, or less politely, WP:CANVASSING has been going on. User:Colonel Warden, posted a keep message here on 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC), he then posted a notice at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list on 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) and at 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (i.e. within 20 minutes, User:Dream Focus had posted a keep notice too. If this was a one-off I could let it pass, but it is not, as can been seen by Editor Interaction Analyzer.[reply]

I note that the code of coduct at the Rescue List states, The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. (my bold). This is patently not so, as neither contributor has made any improvement to the article whatsover, but have merely voted and encouraged others who think similarly to come and cast a !vote.

Please note I have seen this on a couple of other AfDs, and including other overt members of the task force. I have no problem with people wanting to improve and save articles, there is a benefit to WP to do that, but to let it knowingly be used for other purposes and save articles without improvement defeats the whole objective of the rescue squadron.

Now I am aware of this going on I shall be watching.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its just like any other Wikiproject, anyone allowed to add it to the AFD list. Its also on the Wikiproject lists for list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. It is not unusual for people who frequent these list to be seen participating in the same AFDs. Please discuss this elsewhere and don't start a massively long debate here, we having plenty of those already elsewhere you can read through. Dream Focus 15:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the analyser had said only music or list-related articles then you would have a point, it doesn't so not much more to said - whoever closes this should take note. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As numerous music professionals admit, including even the nominator, cities are a popular topic for songs. Per the recently improved lede, good Nick Coleman has even suggested that cities are pop's 2nd most favored topic after Love.
As the Colonel suggests, there are abundant sources covering songs about cities as a group. Dozens of such sources are cited in the excellent Decline, Renewal and the City in Popular Music Culture by Sara Cohen. I concede the point that its challenging to make this list fully comprehensive and exact, but due to the topic's massive notability, it would be unencyclopedic not to have an entry. The rescue squad have improved the lede so it flags to the reader that the list may not be entirely complete.
Those who have contributed to the article, or to defending it in this discussion, are to be congratulated. A most useful resource for academics, music pros and the general public. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coleman is quoted as saying that "pop is better on cities than on anything else, apart from love". He didn't say it was the second-most common topic -- surely there are more pop songs about sex or dancing than about cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but strength/narrow inclusion requirements. "Songs about cities" mean that the song was specifically written to talk about the city itself, and to have sources to justify that was the case. Just being named in the song, or having the city name as the title, isn't sufficient (eg Weird Al's "Albuquerque" is not about the city at all). This might significantly cut down on the list, but that's the only way needed to keep this list, otherwise it is just about songs that happen to mention a city which is trivial. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Anyone claiming that "this doesn't pass WP:LISTN should be aware that LISTN explicitly says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" (such as "songs about cities"). This means that having sources covering the group is enough to establish notability, but not having them doesn't establish a lack thereof. In that case, a local consensus is required to decide whether there's notability or not. Diego (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford & County Golf Club

Bedford & County Golf Club (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)

Unremarkable club - the claims to notability are weak (6th in the country but not by a credible organisation). No evidence that a notable competition has been held here. Biker Biker (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:24, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 18 January 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. Tone 18:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Anwer Aleemi

Syed Anwer Aleemi (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 provides no reliable sources on the subject, and I am unable to find any through Google Books, News, or Scholar, despite the claims the article makes for his importance. It's possible there's another, more common spelling of his name, but I can't find it, nor can I turn up any references to his organization "Human Rights International" (there's an Italian NGO by this name, but he doesn't seem to be a part of it), or his book of poems "Flames of Thoughts". (I don't speak Urdu, though, so my searches were limited to English-only.) So I thought I'd put this article up for AfD trial by fire; I'd be happy if somebody can turn up some sources and fill this one out, but I wasn't able to do it myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 3 January 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, MBisanz talk 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.publishersmarketplace.com/members/MarchTenth/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_January_11&oldid=532480065"