Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 19

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement

List of publications critical of the Latter Day Saint movement (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:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM more or less cover this. The list appears to be unique on Wikipedia: there is no other 'List of publications critical of...' any other religion, nor of anything else. It inherently fails WP:NPOV, and most of the content is of little encyclopaedic interest. Though a few of the books listed have Wikipedia articles (some more deserved than others, in my opinion, but that is an issue for elsewhere), there is nothing to indicate that any of the remaining content is remotely significant, and no reason whatsoever to suggest that any of it would be seen as a reliable source for anything but the author's own opinions. I can think of no legitimate reason why an encyclopaedia should contain such a ragbag collection of 'publications' chosen for no other reason than their perspective on a particular faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - While I am not myself necessarily convinced by all the statements above, and note that there are several "Bibliography of..." articles, I do not see anything in this list which indicates to me that it meets separate notability guidelines, as it would have to. It is also, honestly, apparently completely unreferenced, except perhaps to the publications/web sites themselves. While I could see a Bibliography of the Latter Day Saint movement, and honestly believe there almost certainly is sufficient notability for that, it doesn't seem to exist yet, and keeping what is basically a POV fork of a nonexistent article doesn't make a great deal of sense. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment There exist sources for bibliographies of Mormon criticism, for instance [1], [2], and [3], but only the first one (put out by BYU) may be reliable. There are definitely reliable sources for a bibliography of LDS writings, such as [4] and A Mormon Bibliography 1830 To 1930: Indexes To A Mormon Bibliography And Ten Year Supplement, Editors Chad J. Flake, Larry W. Draper. --Mark viking (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete totally un-cited and un referenced. Critical is POV and needs substantial third party references. Given that there are no refs, it is completely WP:OR and unsuitable for wikipedia.Martin451 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. This probably meets the notability criteria for lists, but it would be far better to have a neutral bibliographic list. I see lots of websites on the list that are probably self-published. StAnselm (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete for POV reasons, although I also agree with the above editors that say a neutral list would be fine. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep -- On a subject like this, authors will almost inevitably be for or against LDS theology and practice. There is a big differnece between having an article that expresses one POV and an article about a widely held POV. We are not going to agree whether Mormonism is right or wrong, but it is as legitmate to have an article giving a bibliograpohy of works supporting the LDS POV as to have one rejecting it. Here I am referring to the bibliography, not the list of websites, which may well need to be pruned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. This article can become very subjective and too expansive. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as a valid split; the main article at Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is too long. FWIW, I am not a Mormon, but I have had Morman clients and students. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Monique Edwards

Monique Edwards (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 puff piece on a non-notable multi-talented actress, of whom only a minor part in a play in LA can be verified ([5]). The IMDB entry is a straight-up copy of our article, or vice versa, who knows. Not a notable actress. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NACTOR and Candleabracadabra's argument. There is zero proof that she's had major roles in many films, nor has a large fan base. Wikipedia is not a portfolio-hosting service. The excessive 'peacock' language and external links are evidence itself that this is merely spam. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC) P.S. Parts of the article are little more than copyvios. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per Bearian. No evidence of major acting career, no evidence of ample coverage in reliable sources. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Grin Report

Grin Report (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 is used as the basis for pushing POV in Languages of the European Union, in my opinion. It is used nowhere else except in Esperanto. The quality of the English in the articles it is used in is not in question; The Grin Report is not notable in itself, but is made to look notable by its inclusion therein. (It is an internal report of and to the EU Commission.) My other edits on Languages of the EU to remove the specific references to Hungarian official status are independent and can be backed up by an independent translator, in any case it is not for me to show that those are RS when removing them, but for editor to show they are when inserting them. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My original and rather longwinded rationale for deletion of this article and of smalls sections of text from Languages of the European Union is at Talk:Languages_of_the_European_Union#Esperanto. I also made notice at Talk:Esperanto and Template Talk:Pages Needing Translation (off their remit but a lot of multilinguists watch there.) I already declared interest in having a Hungarian wife, User:Monkap, who the record shows edits at EN:WP and HU:WP occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of this article. First of all, in my opinion ('cause personal opinion is basically all you give us, dear Si Trew) you are pushing your English-biased POV. You say, literally, the article is only available elsewhere in Esperanto language Wikipedia... So, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan do obviously not take part in your rather "individual" realm of languages.
Secondly (I don't know by heart if EN:WP got that wrong, but you certainly do), the report was not commissioned by the EU, but by France's Haut conseil de l'éducation, then officially published in fall 2005, and then, deliberately, examined by the EU Commission.
Thirdly: "The quality of the English in the articles it is used in is not in question" -- What?! Which "articles" do you mean? Furthermore, your phrase itself somewhat lacks inherent sense... And: If -- which is not the case in the article concerned -- there's some bad grammar or typos: you may correct this in Wikipedia, that's how it works here. No need to hastily delete (which, as I already insinuated, you probably wouldn't do with an article with some bad language in it -- but with another topic). Most interesting: Why did you bring it up in the first place then, to have "more"?
Last not least, "I already declared interest in having a Hungarian wife" -- ??? (I for one would like to have a harem, but once again, personal opinions/feelings and Wikipedia...very important point, you should get this straight first.)

Summing up: Do you have anything substantial? No? Thought so. Schönen Tag noch, 95.90.118.201 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

By default, the article is not notable. It is for others to show that it is. Attacking another good faith editor is not perhaps the best form, and also removing an AfD under an IP address which the bot added back is also perhaps not the best form. It may not have been the same two IPs who did this of course.

Removing the PROD is acceptable, but at the same time removing the PRIMARY and SPAM tags that were added years before I came to this, was perhaps not the best form. That may have been accidental.

When I looked up, the article was in Transwiki for French, Esperanto and English. It was notin German or Portuguese. I can only go by what I see. I myself and not happy with the new way of doing transwiki because I added a transwiki from Hungarian Wikipedia over to English (at ), not changing the article but because it was missing the transwiki link. I got it wrong, and a kind editor pointed me in the right direction and corrected it for me, (my thanks at [[6]] both knowing what we did was in good faith.

When I say "The quality of the English in the article it is used is not in question", I mean that I am not complaining about the quality of the English in the article; it is good English. I can't understand why you can't understand that.

I am not going to be drawn into a personal attack on my knowledge of English, but I think I am entitled to have right of reply. Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I said quite clearly that the article is in French Wikipedia, and in my opinion it should stand there since it gives the facts very straight, but that is only my opinion: anyway it is not our job here to decide what stands or fall in French WP. I made the fatal mistake of actually checking a reference. It is at best PRIMARY to have one article from a single source about that source. I did of course search when it came to AfD and the only sources for "Grin Report" are EN:WP. The other sources on that search (and I searched booklists and journal lists and so on) are minor references where GRIN isused as a refererence abbreviation. I am sure Professor Grin is a nice chap, but this is not notable. Si Trew (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think also it is fair to declare an interest to say my wife is Hungarian. The point is not to brag that I have a wife but to declare the interest, i.e. to say that I may be biased in some way on the specific section of Languages of the EU that refer to Hungary, about Esperanto. I also gave her Wikipedia ID, User:Monkap, and she doesn't edit much here any more but I edit under my name and she does under hers. That is what I understand by declaring an interest, i.e. coming to the table Latin: facile princeps. If that means something else in Esperanto, then I'm sorry for the bad translation. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you do this on purpose or does it just happen by accident? Where to start...

"When I say "The quality of the English in the article it is used is not in question", I mean that I am not complaining about the quality of the English in the article; it is good English. I can't understand why you can't understand that."
You did complain about the English in the PROD you put up just one week ago yourself. Then you decided to tell us differently when you noticed, probably also in very good faith (which is, to my knowledge, officially a pretty weak standard for Wikipedia, ain't it?), differently when it was made clear that this was absolutely baseless.

And, read my quoting you above carefully, you spoke about articleS, that's what made your reasoning the chaos it is.

"Removing the PROD is acceptable, but at the same time removing the PRIMARY and SPAM tags that were added years before I came to this, was perhaps not the best form. "
This PRIMARY you're talking about wasn't there before you came to this, as you get to this page here when you click the link to that mysterious deletion discussion that allegedly existet before... Oh, by the way: The article is less than a year old.

"I said quite clearly that the article is in French Wikipedia [...]"
No, you did not, in that PIRMARY/PROD you yourself put up, there was talk of the report's language (French); and over here you said: "It is used nowhere else except in Esperanto."

In your PROD you complain about the qualitiy of the translation from French into English; however, the original author's translation was correct, other than you say. Furthermore, (it's not but if it was a wrong translation) why can't you just assume good faith with the author and simply correct it? Instead you assume right away it was "omitted" in an intention to mislead. This is sociopathic. Or, as I think, simply your very own English language "povpush".

I'm gonna let you reread my first comment here, as I leave it to others to (re)read it. So I can stop here bringing actual content to the discussion.

All you ever do (in that PROD on the article's page especially), in short, is "presume" about bad others but act "in good faith" yourself (which is, as I said, considered rather weak and blurry criteria here in Wikipedia's sourcing rules). You bring absolutely nothing to the table but factual nonsense in bad faith as I think and a freaky way of expressing yourself. When I denote this critically, it is not offensive per se, but what can I do? Accept there are others, learn to write and argue in a consistent way and do not twist facts or even lie. And maybe learn proper French. Then you won't feel offended anymore. 95.90.118.201 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Clean hands: I have created the article Beethoven's liver as a notable viscus with reliable sources. These two stand or fall on the same grounds. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per GNG. I can find no sign of significant coverage of this report as a report. Searching news archives, I found no mention of the title given in this article and only four articles including the French title ("L'enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique"). Three were in publications that I have never heard of (Franc Parler, Le Faso, and AgoraVox); the fourth appears to be an EU press release. It is mentioned in some books, including Hellinger and Pauwels's (2007) Handbook of Language and Communication and Long and Doughty's (2011) Handbook of Language Teaching, but in discussion of ideas it contains, not of the report as such. Those topics are certainly notable, but the report itself is probably not. Some content might be merged to articles such as Languages of the European Union, Bilingual education#European Union, or Cultural policies of the European Union#Languages, inter alia. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Like Cnilep, I had no such luck finding suitable coverage of this report in news or book sources. However, there is some scholarly commentary about the report in this peer reviewed journal (though it contains a few sentences about the report itself, and more about the ideas generally), and this peer-reviewed journal where the report is the primary subject of the report. This doesn't quite push me to keep, however, on the basis that this single report seems to be the only substantial commentary on this document. If there are additional sources, I'd be more willing to lean toward keep. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, I also want to note that I don't think these particular articles/journals have a particularly high number of citations/impact factor, and so its circulation and usage in scholarly work is unlikely to be significant. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Jenn Bocian

Jenn Bocian (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 created as a paid editing project by User:Billboarder22 (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_promotion).

The subject fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC as she has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has met any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The only reliable sources that mention her, Maxim and Page Six only give short blurbs, and they are far from encyclopedic in nature. The only other documentation found was insignificant or directly affiliated with her. ThemFromSpace 22:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Not sure why it can't be speedied? Is there an assertion of notability? I didn't see one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - two of the references are round-up pieces on "Sexy Schoolgirl Videos" and two are from the issuing label's website. Non-notable per WP: MUSIC.JSFarman (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert Rabilizirov

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Robert Rabilizirov
• Articles for deletion/Robert Rabilizirov (2nd nomination)

Robert Rabilizirov (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 previously; tagged for G4 (, but it's a fuller article with other accomplishments listed, so I declined the Speedy and sent it here. I have not yet checked the other factors. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Interesting article and he seems like an interesting guy, but I'm not seeing substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. A GS h-index of 6 does not get to WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC).

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

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

The result was speedy deletion, A9, non-notable song ... discospinster _talk 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby)

Mind Blown (feat. Timbaland & Adrian Visby) (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 remix of a possibly notable song. Noelia and Timbaland are notable, and can be verified to have created a song by this title. However, this article is about a remix created by an artist named Adrian Visby who has been the subject of long-term vandalism by Horizontal Law (talk · contribs) and his sock farm. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Visby.) There is no verification that Adrian Visby (if he even exists) has collaborated with Timbaland and/or Noelia on this track. The article was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A9, but that tag was removed by Peridon (talk · contribs) with the somewhat cryptic edit summary "see talk page". Since the track has not even yet been released, it is certainly not notable, whether or not the artist involved is notable (or even exists). The page author has asked forebearance pending the track's release and subsequent reviews. I have noted that if (a significant if) the track receives any significant coverage, the article can be re-created then. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Uncryptic comment It's not cryptic when you read the talk page. I don't like summaries that need to be in chapters. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry -- you wrote the edit summary before you edited the talk page, so at the time of this nomination, there was no explanation. Apologies. My nomination rationale still stands. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete I respectfully disagree with Peridon's assessment [7] - to me this is a clear case of notability is not inherited. Even if the original track was notable, this adaptation is not. If it does become notable, then the article should be re-created. It should not retained on the basis of the creator's word that it might become notable in a few days... especially when the creator has a strong conflict of interest. --Drm310 (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - notability is not infectious. If I remix the Bohemian Rhapsody, that remix is not notable. The same applies here. Pinkbeast (talk) 08:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG. Also, the artist tries pushing himself promotionally at the end of the article. Ishdarian 14:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Let me count some of the reasons WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS, WP:COI, WP:SPAM. And there's more...--Richhoncho (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I never said the record was notable. I said that as the main performer was notable, A9 couldn't apply. You need BOTH non-notable singer AND non-notable record for A9. I actually suggested AfD for it. Please note that it's the record not the song that's under discussion. Also that if Pinkbeast, or anyone not notable in terms of having no article, remixes the Queen recording of Bohemian Rhapsody it will be non-notable more than likely, but will not be liable to A9 so long as Queen are on it. CSD is limited. AfD is much wider in scope. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. Remixes of Bohemian Rhapsody, if notable, should be in the main article, per WP:NSONGS. This because they are "song" articles and not discography entries at WP. I am sure everybody knew this, but I do like an opportunity to repeat myself! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete; as pointed out above, fairly clearly not notable ~ at least currently, no matter what happens in the future. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect into the article of the original song. The article seems to just put original research of the remix's composition unsourced info and facts about the singers involved in this remix to make this a long-enough article, but in the end fails to establish notability on its own. It be worth a redirect in my opinion. 和DITOREtails 00:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There isn't an article about the original song, and even if there were, leaving this as a redirect would require at least a mention of this version at the redirect target, which would give undue weight to this version. Given the long term vandalism concerning Adrian Visby, any remaining redirect would just lend legitimacy to this hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Despite notable original performer, there's no notability for this version. (Not speedy - but AfD delete which makes fairly sure a repeat article must be an improvement..) Peridon (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lishan Perera

Lishan Perera (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)

• Strong Delete - has not published any new works since 2007. His works are of little significance, and didn't even make a dent in Asia, let alone the international community . The one book fair he was invited to was more of a national convention than an international fair, as implied in the article. Paul 1953 (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that it is assumed you want it deleted by nominating it.

• Is Asia not part of the international community? And what about the sources in the article? And the convention in question was not in Perera's native country, so his presence, if nothing else, made it international. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Notability is well established. Yes he has not visible recently, but a few years ago there were a number of news articles about him and his writing.Pectore^talk 03:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Administrative Note I have reformatted the above discussion to use the standard AFD Template. This discussion was also not listed in a daily deletion log. Please consider the time of this message as the start time for the discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Last date of publication is not a criterion for deletion. The sources in the article establish notability. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Passes notability on WP:GNG "significant reliable sources cover the subject in depth" and WP:AUTHOR #3, works reviewed multiple times in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Shadazzle. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Brett Barnett

Brett Barnett (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)

"Claim to fame" is having directed a webseries, Shadazzle (see separate AFD), apparently a nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:BIO, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Shadazzle, which seems to be his only claim to notability. If Shedazzle is deleted, then this should probably be deleted, as well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• REdirect/delete, according to outcome on Shadazzle, which I have voted to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by requestor - Having read TFD's comment, I realize that this is different than the Trayvon Martin AFD. RGloucester — 📬 13:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman (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)

Just as with Trayvon Martin, this article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT. He is only notable for the shooting, and any details pertaining to that should be kept at that article. This and the Trayvon Martin article are new spin-offs of the shooting article. There was consensus that both subjects not have their own articles. Let's reinstate the former status quo. RGloucester — 📬 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep When the article was written, Zimmerman was only known for this case and therefore no separate article was required. However the case has made him notable and he is subject to ongoing media coverage about his rescue of accident victims, his divorce, his visit to a gun factory, the police visit to his house, none of which are relevant to the trial article, unless secondary sources connect them. TFD (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Taking into account the attempts to recreate this article under sligtly different orthography, it will also be salted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Deauxma

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Deauxma
• Articles for deletion/Deauxma (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Deauxmae

Deauxma (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 pornographic actress whose notability is contested. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 10, a request to recreate this article, originally deleted in 2006 and protected since 2007, turned into a full-fledged sourcing / notability debate but did not result in a consensus. Because content decisions are to be made via AfD, I'm exercising my DRV closer's discretion to refer the article (in the form of the draft proposed for recreation) to AfD for a decision about the sourcing / notability issue. This being a procedural nomination, I myself express no opinion about that issue.  Sandstein  12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO, without multiple nominations for well-known/significant awards. Fails the GNG, because there are no reliable sources for biographical content -- all the references, beyond databases and laundry lists, are either promotional pages or press releases. Fails BLP requirements, as an article concerning a living person without reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO because she has been nominated for three "well-known and significant industry awards" by AVN and XBIZ and none of them are for "scene-related and ensemble categories". Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per nominations. I can find no consensus that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" is not a significant industry award category, so even without the other references (which are reliable), she still passes WP:PORNBIO. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, per what was said in the DRV. Industry-internal awards – and much more so mere nominations for them – are "significant" only if and insofar their significance is reflected in coverage by other, reliable, independent (i.e. non-industry-internal) sources. Show me the coverage of the "MILF/Cougar..." nomination process in independent media; then and only then can we talk about notability. (Ceterum censeo WP:PORNBIO has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • "WP:PORNBIO has lacked consensus for years and has for that reason long ceased to be a valid guideline." That still isn't true, no matter how badly you may want it to be (and I'm not going to elaborate on that because it has already been explained to you several times). And you want the "keep" !voters to show you the coverage of a nomination process? Not only is that impossible (unless we actually work for AVN or XBIZ, that is), but I don't recall WP:ANYBIO requiring any such thing. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Analysis of the currently-cited sources:

  1. Internet Adult Film Database: not a reliable source. WP:BIO#Notes #6 summarizes the many previous discussions on this better than I can.

  2. Southern Charms Happenings, 3. Orgasm News, 4. Barelist: all interviews with minimal analysis. Primary.

  5. AVN, 6. AVN, 8. XBIZ, 9. AVN, 10. XBIZ: A mix of press releases and minimally-edited reprints of press releases (they didn't even fix the typos!). Not independent.

  7. 2013 XBIZ award nominations. Ten nominations for her category; 311 total nominations in performer categories by my count.

  11. Deauxmalive.com: Article subject's website. Not independent.

  12. 2011 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 305 total nominations in performer categories by my count.

  13. 2013 AVN award nominations via archive.org. Fifteen nominations for her category; 208 total nominations in performer categories by my count.

  So the sum total of our independent, reliable, secondary sources is "2013 NOMINEES... Best Actress - All-Girl Release... Deauxma, Road Queen 22 (Girlfriends Films)"; "2011 Nominations for the 2011 AVN Awards... MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year... Deauxme"; and "2013 NOMINATIONS... MILF/COUGAR PERFORMER OF THE YEAR... DEAUXMA". Even if one accepts WP:PORNBIO at face value and argues that these three nominations amidst 824! others are for "well-known and significant award[s]" despite their total absence of secondary coverage, there's simply not enough material here to write a neutral and verifiable biography. Delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• So are you saying that she would have to be nominated for 824 awards to be considered notable? Now that it has become clearer that WP:PORNBIO is still a valid guideline (if it weren't, it would be redlinked), it seems like now the deletion rationale is, "Oh, but you know what? These sources aren't independent because...um...um..." followed by something really longwinded. Yes, the sources may not be independent...to you. If y'all really have a problem with PORNBIO, don't clog up an AfD; there's a pretty solid discussion going on here about that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If it were a valid guideline, people who pass it would be likely to be notable, as with all the other WP:BIO additional criteria. In this case, as in so many others, it fails.

    You've got 20 edits to the DRV and AFD for this article totalling 9339 bytes so far and have yet to advance a sound, policy- or source-based reason for keeping this article. Accusations of longwindedness are laughably off-base. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Being in porn and having a twin sister just isn't enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Given that the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline states at the very top that it is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, I do not see how meeting the subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO to the general notability guideline would provide such a guarantee. There needs to be enough valid content to fill a written account of that person's life in an article about the person to have the topic handled as a separate, stand-alone page. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). Being nominated or winning an award, making unique contributions, staring, being a member of a Hall of Fame as listed at WP:PORNBIO - these merely require editors to presume that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In other words, if the closer finds that consensus is that Deauxma meets criteria 1 or 2 at WP:PORNBIO, then the topic should be handled as a separate, stand-alone page if editors at AfD cannot show that the topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Proving a negative is difficult. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. However, I do not think that, by itself, overcomes the presumption that arises from meeting WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2. There also is non-electronic databases and source material such as AVN (magazine), Alternative newspaper, etc.). This topic is more likely to receive offline reliable source coverage than online reliable source coverage. If an editor at AfD indicates that they search the topic in non-electronic sources (offline sources) and did not find enough source material to justify a stand-alone article, that would be significant and help prove the negative - to overcome the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 74.74.150.139's review above also is significant. What it says is that those who have an interest in this topic and a motivation to search for reliable source material in offline sources were not able to find enough offline source material to justify a stand-alone article on the topic. The close can take that into account. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Your analysis of policy is completely about face. V is a policy and sits over N/GNG/PORNBIO. It makes clear that the responsibility is on the person who wants to include material to find the sources. [8]. On that basis, if credible searches have been made for reliable sources and none are found then the onus is then on the keep to demonstrate then not the delete side to show they are nonexistant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Ok, lets put the whole "press releases" debate about the sources used in Deauxma's article to rest. While AVN doesn't appear to specify when an article is news and when it is a press release, XBIZ does. For example, take a look at these two articles from XBIZ: [9] and [10]. These two articles are press releases, it says "Company Press" right under the title. Now, the two XBIZ sources in Deauxma's article: [11] and [12] both say "XBIZ News Report" under the title. These aren't press releases, they are clearly news reports. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The press releases they were churned from can be seen here and here respectively. If these "news reports" were posted at Wikipedia, we'd speedy them as copyvios without a second thought. Moving the paragraphs around, changing a few words, and slapping "News Report" on the top doesn't transform a press release into a secondary source. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Those two articles you listed aren't press releases. AAN and AIPdaily are also news websites like AVN and XBIZ. The XBIZ articles didn't originate from the ones you mentioned, in fact, this XBIZ article was posted online before this one (look at the dates), which you claim is the original "press release". Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
      • • Should anyone have any doubts about what's going on here, all they need to do is examine the second item referred to by the IP, the AIPdaily link, which Rebecca1990 identifies as a "news website." The item is labeled as "PRESS RELEASES" in highlighted text near the top of the page, and again in the pathname just above the headline. The claim that it is not a press release would not be made by an honest, competent editor. Perhaps it might be made by a paid publicist; I've seen worse behavior by such flacks here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The article by AIPdaily was published a day after the article from XBIZ. If it were a non-pornographic news website's article which got published somewhere else and labelled as a press release, I'm sure you wouldn't disregard the original because of this. Now, the original XBIZ news report, the one I used as a source in Deauxma's article, is not a press release, it is a news report. I already explained all this. And no, I am not a publicist, if I was, why would I create and edit articles for porn stars like Angel (pornographic actress), who retired a very long time ago? I honestly have no idea what I have done to give you that impression. I proposed the recreation of Deauxma's article simply because she meets the PORNBIO guideline. I would like to know why you're so passionate about keeping this article deleted? And I'm still curious about what happened here. User:Cbrown1023 was the one who deleted and salted Deauxma and I contacted him because the instructions at WP:DRV say to "discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review." You replied to me on Cbrown1023's talk page. Why? How did you even find out I had contacted Cbrown1023? Are you wikihounding me? Rebecca1990 (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
            • What rubbish. I asked an admin not to unilaterally reverse the consensus outcome of an AFD I initiated. That's not "wikihounding" by any stretch of the imagination. As for the press release under discussion, it began as standard promotional material on the webhost's page a week before it was recycled by XBIZ [13]; minor editing and sticking a byline on it doesn't make it reliable journalism -- especially when the byline belongs to an employee of a PR business! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
              • That doesn't answer my question. How did you find out I had contacted Cbrown1023? I can't think of any other explanation besides wikihounding since you're not supposed to receive notifications of posts on other user talk pages. It seems like you were either wikihounding me or Cbrown1023. And if you still want to waste your time disputing the sources in Deauxma's article then go ahead, that still doesn't change the fact that she passes PORNBIO based on her award nominations alone since all three of them are "well-known and significant industry awards". Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Those two press releases I listed are, in fact, press releases, and anyone who can't recognize them as such has no business editing biographies of living people. (And no, it's not particularly significant that XBIZ posted their minimally-edited version a day before AIPDaily posted their unedited one.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Unless consensus finds XBIZ, the publisher of the work, or the creator of the work, John Sanford[14] or Nelson Ayala[15], not reliable sources, I think you will need much more to declare press release through churnalism. The bigger issue is the "coverage" term in the GNG coverage requirement. The requirement is "address the subject directly." For a biography article on Deauxma, that means addressing the person Deauxma directly. The news article Road Queen does not address the person Deauxma directly. Rather, that source describes the drifter character of the Road Queen movie using elements contributed by the writer of Road Queen, not those contributed by the person Deauxma herself. That news sources does not even identify the person Deauxma as being in the cast, so I would say that first news story counts towards a character article on the character Deauxma, but not GNG count towards a biography article on the person Deauxma. The second news story is a little better. In MILF, you can find elements of the person Deauxma's life that can be used in the Wikipedia biography article - change website, her age, began in the adult industry in 2004 and, as of October 2012, performed in greater than 90 adult productions. I don't think that amounts to "in detail" per the GNG Significant coverage requirement, but it definitely is biographical information usable in a Wikipedia article on the topic. Also, the WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 presumption of meeting GNG still is there. -- Jreferee (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment We are beginning to get sidetracked from this discussion just like in the DRV. Remember, we are here to discuss if Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO, not WP:GNG. Pornographic actors aren't required to pass GNG in order to have a WP article. For example, Loona Luxx, Mike Adriano, Celeste Star, and Capri Anderson all survived in recent AfD's. They all pass PORNBIO solely based on their awards and nominations and if Deauxma doesn't meet GNG, then neither do they since they all have less news coverage than her. Why is Deauxma's article so controversial and why should she be any different from these four porn actors? Is it simply because her article got salted? If that's the reason why then let me remind you again that it's been 6-7 years since then and this AfD no longer applies today. Now back to the topic of this discussion, does Deauxma pass PORNBIO? Why or why not? Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • WHERE ARE THE THIRD PARTY RELIABLE SOURCES? THERE ARE NONE. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not applied in a vacuum. Rather, they are applied collectively and with a goal of applying them consistently from one topic to the next. The subject-specific guidelines are specific notability guidelines to the general Wikipedia:Notability. Pornographic actors and models guideline is a sub-guideline to the Entertainers sub-guideline, which is subject to the general requirements listed at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (people), which itself is a sub-guideline to Wikipedia:Notability, which itself is subject to content policies, which are subject to Wikipedia:Five pillars. Meeting PORNBIO or establishing that the topic is "notable" by itself is not enough to say that the topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles need written prose that summarizes reliable source material. Passing PORNBIO by winning an industry award is not source material that can be used to write a biography on Deauxma. However, winning an industry award is evidence that that writers have or are going to write about Deauxma's life. The other articles passing AfD falls under WP:WAX. Wikipedia is based on consensus. AfD closers take into account strength of argument provided by those posting in an AfD discussion - how those in a discussion use policy/guidelines in what they post to support their position. Even when an editor does not cite to any policies or guidelines or intermix a cited policy/guideline with their reasons for their position, the closer still needs to apply policies and guidelines consistently to what that person posts. Because the same editors do not participate in each AfD discussion, consensus for one topic may be different from consensus for another topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep She passes PORNBIO. Whether you like the guideline or not, it exist, and the rules of notability are quite clear. Dream Focus 09:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Google About 5,830,000 results, Results xbiz.com.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete this material. I don't find XBiz or AVN to be reliable sources, and the others are primary.—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

  They are reliable sources listing their own awards, just as any official website for a notable award would be considered reliable. Dream Focus 00:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. I think the AVN and XBIZ nominations are too weak a standard for Wikipedia. They'd make about 600 porn bios notable every year (though I'm sure some get nominated repeatedly). That's probably a large percentage of the entire North American porn industry. Looking at the last guideline discussion on this issue, there is no consensus that nominations are sufficient for Wikipedia notability. The only reason why a no-consensus wording is in the guideline is the "preemptive strike" by the porn wikifans who sneaked the wording into the guideline and manged to get the famous "no consensus to remove" thereafter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • AVN and XBIZ are "well-known and significant industry awards" and having several award categories and several nominees per category does not degrade their value. Nominations without wins are enough to determine notability according to WP:PORNBIO and a discussion with no consensus does not override the established guidelines. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete, as this person does not meet the general notability guide. Press releases and trifling porn nominations, not even wins, don't count. WP:PORNBIO is for all intents and purposes ignored, it cannot be a used and abused safety net to catch otherwise unremarkable and non-notable porn figures. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  You disagreeing with a subject specific guideline, doesn't mean you can ignore it. Dream Focus 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In fact, I can. The project is being used for free advertising for non-notable porn starlets; we're not Facebook, nor are we a casting directory for the porn industry. So if we have to set aside a half-witted sub/single-notability guide because it tries to backdoor bios on no other basis than multiple nominations, than that is what I believe we must do. These people do not meet WP:N, and WP:PORNBIO cannot be used as a safety net for non-notable actors. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete When an SNG is in conflict with the GNG then we have to look at wider community expectations to decide which one has primacy. On that basis the requirement to source biographies is paramount across the project and enshrined in BLP. V another widely accepte4d policy requires material to be sourced to reliable sources. In depth coverage in reliable secondary sources is a cornerstone of our project and has overwhelming support. PORNBIO is.. well.. not widely supported outside those editors arguing to keep it and at variance with the requirement that SNGs are supposed to point towards criteria where sources are likely to exist. I do not find either AVN or XBIZ reliable sources as they are too prone to reprint press handouts and fact checking is woeful. On that basis I cannot argue to retain this content on the basis of PORNBIO AVN nominations when the sourcing is so woeful and BLP/V/GNG expectations are so clearly not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  You can't ignore a subject specific guideline just because you don't like it. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." And to the right is of course the subject specific notability guideline for people, which includes porn stars. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines as well. Dream Focus 10:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes you can, by consensus. Where NGs clash a discussion can decide which way to go - especially when one NG is weakly accepted and another is widely accepted as our inclusion standard. I'd say the outcome of this discussion is pretty clear on that point. What you are arguing for is that non-notable individuals where there are demonstratively no reliable sources of any substance should have an article based on aa SNG that is widely deprecated and at odds with the overall inclusion standard. And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I have been consistent in the position for years and have overturned numerous deletions when closing DRVs on the basis that NFOOTY cannot exclude subjects who pass the GNG. You are welcome to disagree but don't state something as a fact that is demonstratively not a fact and subject to consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    • So you believe you can ignore the Notability guidelines? And what is this "weakly accepted" or "widely accepted" nonsense? They are both included in the Notability guidelines. And it is not widely deprecated, that doesn't make any sense at all. If you don't like a guideline, then start a RFC to eliminate it. All past times someone has done that, consensus has been to keep it. Dream Focus 10:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

      • I believe that when two guidelines are in tension with each other its permissible for a discussion to take a view on which guideline is closest to community expectation and reach a consensus based on that. Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth but clearly this is a much more nuanced issue then the binary choice you are trying to force through. There was an RFC, the clear conclusion was that PORNBIO was defective but there wasn't the required super-consensus to just abolish it but no-one could agree on what it should be replaced by. That's fairly good evidence that its not something that has wide community consensus. Unlike the GNG for example which has become the defacto standard inclusion threshold that a vast majority of editors agree with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Wouldn't every single subject specific guideline then be "in tension with each other" since the reason we have subject specific guidelines is because things can be notable without passing the general notability guidelines? You seem to just be looking for an excuse to ignore a guideline you don't like. Dream Focus 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
          • WP:PORNBIO is part of WP:BIO which describes as "it's in a nutshell" - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand alone list article. All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality." - I'm not sure why you think that means things can be notable without meeting the GNG when that is really a restating of the GNG. The additional criteria which is where PORNBIO is under has a heading which indicates it's status. The additional criteria are guides as to if people are likely to meet the basic criteria - which is essentially the GNG, not a replacement for it. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
            • The nutshell is irrelevant. Read the actual article. It list the basic criteria of the GNG and then in the "Additional criteria" section it reads "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". Same thing said in WP:NOTABILITY. You are notable if you meet either the GNG or the subject specific guidelines. Its always been this way. Dream Focus 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Yes. "Likely to be". Not "are". You are notable if you meet the GNG. You are likely to be if you meet one of the additional criteria. (And for most of the additional criteria, that's even accurate.) 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
              • So you think the in a nutshell is irrelevant - no, understanding the full context in which things are set out is or course significant in understanding the meaning. You can't just cherry pick. However as I said - "the additional criteria are guides as to if people are likely to meet the basic criteria", as it says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards". Also helpful if you read into the next sentence of that section "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." --86.5.93.42 (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete - Hullaballoo was the first to iVote in this AfD and clearly set out what needs to be discussed. There is no process basis to claim that "if a topic meets WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2, then the topic will be treated in a stand alone article." Wikipedia:Notability guidelines are not independent from each other. Rather Sub-Sub-subject-specific guideline WP:PORNBIO is read in view of WP:GNG, which literally has received review and/or revision from many Wikipedians. Guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability are read in view of content policies, such as WP:V, which themselves are subject to Wikipedia:Five pillars. Fails WP:PORNBIO - Regarding WP:PORNBIO, there is no showing in this AfD discussion that the awards for which she was nominated -- AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year, AVN MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year, or XBIZ Best Actress - All-Girl Release -- are "well-known and significant industry awards." For example, none of the awards are listed at Category:Pornographic film awards. If they were "well-known and significant", there would be evidence that they meet WP:GNG and none of that evidence has been brought forth in this AfD. Fails WP:N - even of WP:PORNBIO criteria 1 or 2 were met, that only creates a presumption that the topic has GNG received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I searched an online database of print published source material and did not find enough source material for a stand alone article. It is clear that some of the participants in this AfD discussion are familiar with pornographic reliable sources, but no one in this discussion has identified any offline source where such significant coverage could possibly reside. So, even if WP:PORNBIO were met, the GNG presumption that it brings up has been disproved, meaning that there is not enough source material for a stand-alone article. BLP Fictional/real character - As S Marshall noted at the DRV,[16] Deauxma is both a fictional character and a real person. This article focuses on the fictional/stage character (Deauxma is not listed in the film cast) whereas this article provides biographical information for the person Deauxma. We do not even know Deauxma's real name or birth date. She likely controls her celebrity image to maintain a fictional image and hide real life elements to keep her fans interested. Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written with regard for the subject's privacy. Given the scant amount of information available on the real person Deauxma and how she projects the fictional character Deauxma, it is not clear that having a biography on Deauxma could be written in regard for the subject's privacy. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. You don't seem to understand the difference between award ceremonies and award categories. Of course "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" aren't listed at Category:Pornographic film awards. I think what you meant to say was that "MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year" and "Best Actress - All-Girl Release" don't have articles of their own like AVN Best New Starlet Award and AVN Female Performer of the Year Award do. Is that what you were trying to say? Because if that's the case then the male equivalent of these awards, the AVN Awards for "Best Male Newcomer" and "Male Performer of the Year" aren't "well-known and significant industry awards" either since they don't have WP articles? Are the only pornographic actors notable enough for a WP article females who have been nominated multiple times for "Best New Starlet" and "Female Performer of the Year"? I have participated in many WP:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion AfD's and consensus generally demonstrates that all award categories for ceremonies listed here are "well-known and significant industry awards" with the only exception being "scene-related and ensemble categories". The Urban X Awards are apparently excluded too according to these AfD's for Sara Jay, Cherokee D'Ass, and Pinky, although it seems to me that this is just another attempt by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to degrade the value of an adult industry award. But, the AVN and XBIZ awards are both well-known and significant, no doubt about it and these were the awards Deauxma was nominated for.
  • 2. The whole "fictional character" argument S Marshall started at the DRV is just silly. Like Erpert said, Deauxma and all other porn stars are real people working under stage names, not fictional characters. And even if they were fictional characters, how is that a valid argument for deleting an article? We wouldn't delete the WP articles for Peter Griffin and Mickey Mouse because they are fictional characters, would we?
  • 3. The whole "real name" argument is also silly and it was already addressed in the DRV. First of all, knowing her real name does not increase her notability, secondly, it cannot be included on WP if it hasn't been published by a reliable source, and I don't think that IMDb, Deauxma's Porn Wikileaks article, or trademark information for the stage name "Deauxma" are reliable sources for her real name.
  • 4. Whether you all like it or not, Deauxma passes WP:PORNBIO, which is an established guideline on WP, and making invalid arguments based on faulty reasoning to draw people's attention away from WP:PORNBIO and towards WP:GNG won't make the guideline disappear. Rebecca1990 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • To determine whether an award is "well-known and significant" under WP:PORNBIO, there needs to be evidence that the award has received significant coverage in reliable sources (see WP:GNG) to at least establish the "well-known" requirement of WP:PORNBIO. The "significant" portion of "well-known and significant" would also need to meet additional criteria to be satisfied, because the criteria is "well-known and significant". That applies to each Urban X Award as well. WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS instructs AfD closers to look at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). The view that the "Urban X" award does or does not demonstrate notability is a personal opinion (not an argument) that does not appear in a guideline and also bypasses the WP:PORNBIO guideline. Some of the Urban X Awards may have received significant coverage in reliable sources, so those could fall under "well-known and significant" per WP:PORNBIO if such evidence is presented at an AfD. An award shows things like fame, importance, or popularity, but does not directly show that there is reliable source material available from which to write the Wikipedia article - which is what really matters when it comes to determining whether a topic should be treated in a stand-alone article. If there is not enough reliable source material to write a Wikipedia article, then how are contributors supposed to write the article and meet WP:V. As for fictional character, I think you are correct. Fictional character does not fit. Pee-wee Herman and Paul Reubens show a fictional character/real person connection covered in two separate articles. Stage names such as Dwayne Johnson and The Rock (actor) (a redirect) seems a better fit. The stage name article notes that some performers use a stage name in order to retain anonymity, which accounts for the little information available on her real name and birth date (two significant biography elements). Deauxma being a stage name also fits with WP:STAGENAME. I searched for source material under Deauxma's real name, but did not see any thing that indicated the information was about Deauxma. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Both the AVN Awards and the XBIZ Awards are proven notable in their industry by being listed on the products of that industry. They don't need mainstream coverage to meet pornbio requirements. Dream Focus 13:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Rubbish. Total nonsense. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
          • How so? If these are awards everyone in that industry goes to ceremonies for, and list as their accomplishments, and has mentioned on the packaging for their videos and whatnot, then surely it must be considered significant awards for their industry. Dream Focus 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
            • We already know that not every award is notable or relevant because even pornbio acknowledges that not every award should count towards notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
              • We're not talking about every award, we're talking about these two. You don't get everyone from any industry to fly down to an annual award ceremony, unless they all took the awards seriously. Howard Stern even does a yearly "AVN Awards Recap". [17] Dream Focus 23:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Aside from wondering why this discussion has been open for almost two weeks when it hasn't even been relisted, I find it very interesting that many of the users !voting--no, urging "delete" are IPs. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • More personalisation and aspertions Erpert. Bravo. By the way your calender needs a recheck. This has been open 10 days not 2 weeks and there are currently 24 open AFDs from 19th that need closing and given the certainty that you are going to be difficult over any close that you don't agree with I suspect that this one is right at the end of the queue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Spartaz, have you learned nothing? You came back from a wikibreak only to continue the same behavior. And as I said to another editor, baiting doesn't work on me. I suggest you stop clogging up AfDs with comments like this and instead focus on the actual subject of the discussion. (Also, if you were paying attention, I clearly said "almost two weeks".) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Erpert, stop casting aspersions on editors whose positions you disagree with. You've been warned about this, over and over, by multiple editors, going back nearly two years [18], and your refusal to stop these NPA/CIVIL/AGF violations is disruptive. If you didn't notice, you gained no community support for your bogus claims of harassment in the ANI discussion you cite. [19] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
        • HW, give it a rest already. If you ban me from your talk page, you don't in turn get to wikihound me in other venues (also, typing in all bold text doesn't do much to prove your point). And for the last time, stop bringing up that old AfD (I hadn't even thought about that topic before you brought it up). BTW, you know full well that claiming I gained no community support from the AN report is completely false (because among other things, it was eventually spun off by an uninvolved editor, now, wasn't it?). Now, if we can actually focus back on Deauxma... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
          • • Phony accusations of wikihounding are uncivil and disruptive. You don't get to decide who can respond to your comments. except on your own talk page. As for that supposed community support you received, note that the editor who spun out the new topic stated This request was opened with conclusory phrases such as: harassment, being harassed, bad-faith, he doesn't like, apparent bias, attacking me, accusing me, people who don’t like, his real bias, berate me. Numerous conclusions are being made about Spartaz without any supporting consensus and there is no effort to seek consensus on any of these personal conclusions. AN is then asked to take action based on these personal conclusions. This thread is set up in a way that will not lead to a consensus regarding the basis for the request, but will bring in replies. When replied come into this thread, they are used as opportunity to continue leveling unsupported accusations. That's not what a reasonable person would describe as "support". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
              • So anyone that disagrees with you is being disruptive? Got it. Look, this isn't Wolfowitzipedia, so people are going to have discussions that you might not necessarily agree with. It seems like the fact that I won't give in to a battle is bothering you more, so you just keep pushing. I'm going to see if an uninvolved admin can close this discussion because it has gone way off topic. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 16:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
                • No, Erpert. Not everyone who disagrees with me. But you've been cited repeatedly, by multiple editors, for disruptive badgering and personalizing discussions, over nearly two years. And your response is to make phony accusations against the editors involved, which are uniformly rejected by the broader community. Bringing multiple phony complaints against the admin who rejected you arguments in DRVs was appalling behavior that should have been sanctioned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • If by many IPs you mean 2, this one at least who commented at the DRV regarding the same points (and comments on DRVs on various subjects), then I guess your definition of interesting differs to mine. I would say it's rather more interesting that you continue resort to vague insinuations rather than things of substance. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Update: I checked, the many IPs (2) both commented at the DRV. The other IP also appears to have a history of being involved in DRV, hope this helps your curiosity--86.5.93.42 (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PORNBIO might be the single most stringent subject notability guideline there is; it goes way beyond GNG. So when a subject passes it, I don't think there can seriously be doubt that notability has been met. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Absurd. PORNBIO is the least stringent subject notability guideline. It purports to paint as notable people who
    • have been nominated or won awards that are well-known or significant only within their industry, as opposed to well-known or significant in general as is required in all other SNGs that put any weight on awards at all (compare specifically WP:ANYBIO;
    • have inherited notability solely by virtue of appearing in a single "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" (compare WP:NACTOR);
    • have merely been featured in mainstream media, without the usual requirements of being multiple, reliable, secondary, in-depth, or independent of the subject (compare WP:BASIC).
  • Even if she meets PORNBIO, or WP:NACTOR, or WP:NASTRO for that matter, all that SNGs even claim to show is a likelihood of notability. They say so right on their guideline pages. People have been trying to get a Wikipedia page for this actress in particular since mid-2006, and in all that time have been not been able to produce EVEN ONE in-depth independent secondary source of the sort that actually shows notability. The only reasonable conclusion is that there are none. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong delete — Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. A subject or topic that meets a particular notability guideline IS NOT guaranteed a stand-alone Wikipedia article. One of the primary functions of the AfD process is to determine if a subject, which is "presumed to be notable" (by virtue of meeting an SNG) is actually notable. Consensus at an AfD can and does override notability guidelines, especially when the article is not or cannot be in compliance with actual policy like BLP or V. When the presumption of notability from the guideline conflicts with the requirement to have a neutral, well-sourced, well-written article, then you CAN and DO "just ignore" the guideline. Not because you don't like it, but because meeting a notability guideline is NOT A GUARANTEE that the subject gets an article. Regarding this specific article, my opinion after having read the article and checked the sources, is that this person is not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, WP:PORNBIO be damned, because the sources are not sufficient to write a neutral, truly verifiable article about this living person. —Darkwind (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: I was originally here because I was going to try to close this discussion, but realized I would rather boil my head in acid than go through the eventual return to DRV this is almost certainly going to see. Perhaps my !vote was a bit strongly worded, but that's largely due to frustration at people assuming that passing a notability guideline was an engraved invitation or bullet-proof shield to having a Wikipedia article -- completely ignoring the sentence at the top of "Additional criteria" on WP:BIO: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis mine) —Darkwind (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Frederick D. Drake

Frederick D. Drake (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, fails WP:PROF. No significant GHits. GregJackP Boomer! 11:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. This individual's deceased father may be notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above for lack of substantial coverage establishing notability per WP:PROF's criteria. If subject's standing and applicability changes at a later date to meet these criteria, re-create via Articles for Creation to take advantage of the peer review process. besieged^talk 17:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I searched for book reviews to see if it would pass WP:AUTHOR #3. Found some citations in course syllabus and teaching bibliographies. This might pass WP:PROF #4, but it stipulates for higher education and this book is for middle and high school levels. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- The article is at present a poor stub, but a google scholar search produces a lot of results, including nearly 40 books and articles that appear to be by the subject. Furthermore, I would have thought that the award of the title "professor emeritus" indicated that his university considered him notable. It looks as if his field of work was educating history teachers and his works are on that field of education, rahter than on history itself, but that does not alter my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Weak delete A GS h-index of 6 in pedagogy not quite there. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC).

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

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

The result was merge to Georgia State Route 141. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Peachtree Industrial Boulevard

Peachtree Industrial Boulevard (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 shows no notability as to why it should exist. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge Part of the road is a freeway. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Not at all notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge As I had proposed. Contains junctions in SR 141 portion not included in Georgia State Route 141. --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Hollard Group. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Real Insurance

Real Insurance (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. Lack of sources - only one source independent of company, WP:CORP , WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 10:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hollard Group. ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Hollard Group or Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Thomas_&_Friends#Hit_Entertainment. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Brenner (writer)

Andrew Brenner (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)

The gentleman exists, but is not notable. BLPPROD was removed by an experienced editor despite the only independent source being IMDB which is not WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 09:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Thomas_&_Friends#Hit_Entertainment. While Brenner has done other things, he seems to be predominantly known for his work with Thomas & Friends. He's mentioned in the article under the Hit Entertainment section, so I can see a rationale for redirecting there. I have no problem with someone userfying this, if they so wanted. The problem here is that staff writers tend to not get much, if any, coverage from reliable sources. There are some fansites that comment upon him, but not much else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete or possible redirect. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Either Delete or rediredct per Tokyogirl. He does not seem to ahve done enough to merit having an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Subject meets WP:GNG per sources from NinjaRobotPirate (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Twin Cities hip hop

Twin Cities hip hop (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)

Unsourced affair that acts as advertisement and coat rack. The Banner talk 09:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG generally, and at best is of "maybe" local interest only. Nothing shows hip hop in "Twin Cities hip hop" to any more notable than hip hop anywhere else. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep. This actually seems to be a thing. Here's an entire chapter about it, an article in the Star Tribune, an article in the A.V. Club about the same thing, another Star Tribune article that proclaims that TCHH is no longer underground, and apparently someone named Prof is bringing a taste of it to you. I could probably come up with more, but that's enough for me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Other than the introduction to the article needing work it looks good to me. Substantially covered in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. Happy to change my opinion per the sources brought forward. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I will userfy upon request if a merge is desired at a future date. —Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Rap in Minnesota

Rap in Minnesota (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)

Unsourced affair that not offers an overview of Rap in Minnesota but acts like a coat rack for artist and radio stations. Further more: in concentrates on St. Paul and Minneapolis and ignores everything outside it. The Banner talk 09:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and any WP:V for being a Minneosta hip-hop phenomena. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Merge with Midwest hip-hop. Per lack of sourcing. Better to cover this in parent subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment: for what it is worth: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hollathag/Archive The Banner talk 18:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The Tapegerm Mixes

The Tapegerm Mixes (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)

Compilation album lacking notability. Lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Only references are from the artists own site and from internet archive. No independent sources. The external links are just linkspam. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails to meet notability guidelines. --User666777 (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, wrong name, but apparently not a hoax. Thanks to Titodutta! Fram (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Chhota Bheem In Junglee Kabila

Chhota Bheem In Junglee Kabila (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)

Probable hoax. No reliable sources for this movie exist (unlike for other Chhota Bheem movies), and "the story of this movie is same as Chhota Bheem and The Broken Amulet" is a bit strange of course.

Perhaps someone can check whether all the other Chhota Bheem articles are about real movies? I know that e.g. the Broken Amulet is a real one, just like The Rise of Kirmada, but things like Chhota Bheem And The Crown of Valahalla, created by the same editor, seem equally dubious. Some expert attention would be welcome here. Fram (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have worked in two Chhota Bheem articles— Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali and Chhota Bheem and the Curse of Damyaan, both were featured in DYK section and are definitely not hoaxes.
  Now, the article here too does not seem to be a hoax. It seems to be a television series (this direct link may not work in Internet Explorer), search with alternative spelling 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 etc. GNG is a different question. --Tito☸Dutta 21:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• And yes, this editor always edits Chhota Bheem articles. a single purpose account, Might be a paid editor. --Tito☸Dutta 21:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I had searched for "Jungle Kabila", but not for "Junglee Kabeela" or "Junglee Qabila". I guess this can be closed. Can you perhaps keep an eye on this editor and his creations, and move them to a more correct title when necessary? Fram (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Arthur Loves Plastic. —Darkwind (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Loves Plastic (album)

Arthur Loves Plastic (album) (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)

Compilation album lacking notability. Lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Only reference is just a listing. Nothing coming close to WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails to meet notability guidelines. --User666777 (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Redirect into artist article. The compilation isn't much-covered in secondary sources, but a redirect still doesn't hurt. 和DITOREtails 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Weak redirect per EditorE and WP:CHEAP. It won't be the most helpful redirect since it's the same name as the artist, but I see value to retaining the history in case notability can ever be demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Gregor Rosinger

Gregor Rosinger (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 is neither fish nor fowl. It appears to be a biography, but the wording is at least 50% about a corporation. The references are all corporate. The corporation is the entity that appears to be notable, simply sharing the name of its founder. Fiddle Faddle 09:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Simply a puff piece. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. scope_creep talk 15:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment Similar arguments about personal vs corporate notability can be seen in the German Wikipedia debate which led to the subject's biography being deleted. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of biographical notability. (I also doubt that an article on the subject's firm would meet WP:CORPDEPTH.) AllyD (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per nom. This is where Rosinger Group is covered, so if that entity is notable then the article is worth keeping. Renaming it and reworking it to focus on the company seems reasonable based on the noted findings regarding sourcing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• An unusual usage of "per nom". If there is an article to be written on the corporation then write it. This one is about the person, a person who seems "increasingly non notable". This article is seeking to enhance his reputation via Wikipedia. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete This article just has too many problems. If someone wants to write a properly sourced and written article about the company that might be okay. Too much promotion and sourcing issues here. The encyclopedia is best served excluding this subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I think we do need an article on either him or his firm, and this is a place to start, Which of the two it should be on is pretty much of a toss-up. The notability of a investment firm of this sort is closely connected with the founder. The best distinguishing factor is the size of the firm--there will always be some sources, but it's hard to sort out the degree to which they might be PR. As for promotionalism, it would be the same whether the title of the article is the person or the company. The deWP deletion is not a precedent for us--our standards are not usually as restrictive. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep as Person. Also other Investors use their Investment-Vehicle for doing Investments - it is important who is the CEO and Majority owner and makes the Investment decision. Think about People like Warren Buffet, George Soros or in Austria Ronny Pecik, Rene Benko, Georg Stumpf, a.s.o. These People are in Wikipedia as natural Person because they are in their driver Seat of their Investment-Firms. For the Rosinger Group the Person Gregor Rosinger is in that position as Decision-maker, he is CEO and owner (together with his wife) and I know (from the source from Capital IQ Standard & Poor's and because of working as Investmentbanker in the same Market where Rosinger operates as Investor) that Gregor Rosinger is investing also as natural Person - he is not always using his investment Vehicles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstreet Fighter (talk • contribs) 20:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Wallstreet Fighter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep As both a private investor as well as a founder, CEO and owner of an investment firm I believe he has the relevance to be kept in here as a private person. Maybe adding another page for Rosinger Group would be good to make a distinction between the person and the corporation and to make the picture whole? HawaiianRainbow (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC) — HawaiianRainbow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 22:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It’s very important that other people also know the person who stands for and behind the company Rosinger Group who is Gregor Rosinger. The founder of such investment companys is a main part of the whole company system because he built up this business and he makes the important decisions and has the most influence on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witch cat 2907 (talk • contribs) — Witch cat 2907 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This was on the AfD talk page. I have moved it here for completeness. Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as person No PLC or LLC makes the decision of the company, basically the persons behind make it. In this case Gregor Rosinger is the person behind Rosinger Group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse-girl2013 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Horse-girl2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 23:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Mr. Rosinger obviously has major power over the Rosinger Group but also does investments not linked to his corporation at all. The facts are proved by numerous sources and seem to be of notability. Therefore I regard it as important to keep him as a person. Mani13051972 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mani130572 (talk • contribs) — Mani130572 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Note we seem to be getting a load of people arrive who are single purpose accounts. The need to be aware that a discussion is not a ballot, and that a simple count of numbers does not 'win the day'. The only thing that wins the day here is an article that is fit to remain here. I can;t find the form of words to put at the head of the discussion to dissuade !vote stacking. Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Vine (software). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric Dunn (Vine)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Eric Dunn (Vine)
• Articles for deletion/Eric Dunn (Vine) (2nd nomination)

Eric Dunn (Vine) (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 reputable sources. A YouTube uploader with no mainstream references  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong Keep Why a 2nd nomination for deletion for this article? The first nomination resulted in NC, with the only vote to delete being later crossed out by the user. The reason "No reputable sources. A YouTube uploader with no mainstream references" is a complete inaccuracy.

• 1. No reputable sources. (MSN, Tubefilter, Gawker, Complex are all present sources for the article)
• 2. A YouTube uploader (YouTube is a secondary platform for Dunn, at least have the reason for a 2nd AfD nom have his primary platform included)
• 3. No mainstream references (see #1)

Soulbust (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivial coverage by mainstream sources, and most of the citations go to Facebook, YouTube, or his own personal site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 18:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Trim and Merge to the Vine (software). Plenty of room there to cover the app's most notable participants. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Merge to Vine (software)... basically per Candleabracadabra. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject has not yet reached the inclusion threshold. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Daniel da Silva (actor)

Daniel da Silva (actor) (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)

Blatantly non-notable. The only thing approaching a reference does not mention the subject. Benboy00 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NACTOR. Only a handful of small roles, all in non-notable films. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment An IMDB reference was recently added, but as everyone knows, IMDB is editable by users, as mentioned in this essay (and somewhere in WP:RELY). I suspect that this does not meet the standards of WP:NOTABILITY, but I leave that judgement to other users. A google search of: ""Daniel da Silva"" actor" returns only 1 non-user generated result on the first page, which is an advert for one of the films he is in (not sure if that's relevant or not). I think there is also likely to be some confusion due to the abundance of people named "da Silva". Benboy00 (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I am the article's creator. Simply put, this is an artist who is producing work. The essay mentioned above by Benboy00 states that, particularly "If an actor manages to maintain a low profile and so fails WP:GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press that is readily available though an internet search, that "low profile" and failing GNG does not exclude him as long as the career is itself properly verified in reliable sources...specially as guideline well acknowledges that not everything that is notable makes headlines, and not everything that is notable is easily searchable online." ALSO WP:Notability (people), particularly "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." and ultimately WP: Verifiability states that, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." Agreed with Benboy00's google search results of "Daniel da Silva" "actor" with the inclusion of images from productions. I searched the artist's projects and found timely newsworthy results - a successful post-production crowdsourcing campaign on Kickstarter with $45,525.00 raised by 244 supporters for his film, American Mongrel; and Collapse is having its North American premiere at the California Film Institute's 36th Mill Valley Film Festival in October. For certain, "notable" enough to warrant an article and I will continue to work on improving this article. Thank you! Innererklang (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Hi Innererklang, thank you for your contributions to wikipedia. This should really be put on your talk page, but as it relates to the article, I thought I should put it here. I understand what you're saying, but unfortunately wikipedia can not (and, in my opinion, should not) document all people, whether they be artists, scientists, historians, or anything else. From what I can see, this actor, like many actors, is not, at the moment, "worthy of notice". This is not in any way a judgement of his talent, it is merely an observation. He may very well, in the future, become worthy of notice, but the fact remains that at the moment, the films he has been in are not notable. On a completely different note, this article is full of unsourced information (in fact, as there are no sources, the entire article is unsourced). This is technically grounds for deletion on its own with a BLPPROD notice, however as IMDB has been added to the page, even though not as a source, I think this technicality should probably be overlooked. HOWEVER, as noted in WP:BLP, wikipedia cannot host unsourced information in BLP's. It is for this reason that I will soon remove the unsourced information. This will leave the article as basically a description of three films, which is unlikely to pass muster. Please add some sources for the informaton if you can find some. I would do so myself, but I am not in the best position to do so at the moment. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Barely mentioned in any sources. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment I removed some information that wasnt even in IMDB, and removed a related category tag. This article is now basically a description of 3 pretty un-notable films. It has now been a week since nomination. The votes are 1 keep from the creator who thinks this person is notable, and 2 deletes from others based on lack of notability. It should perhaps be noted that the creator seems to be a single purpose account. Is there enough consensus to delete? Benboy00 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be in a rush: AFD discussions run at least 7 days ... often longer. Remember too that it's not a vote. There's no need to rush anyone to close an AfD, ever ES&L 12:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

While it is true that AfD's should not be rushed, it is also true that they shouldn't be unnecessarily prolonged. As far as I can tell, 7 days is not the minimum for AfD's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed), it how long they are normally "allowed" to run. This suggests that 7 days is an upper limit, unless there is some reason to run them longer, such as no contributors or a lot of controversy. Neither of those seem true in this case, as the only defender is the creator, who in MY (possibly biased and/or flawed) opinion, does not raise any valid points, and who has not replied to my comment. Also, it has now been 8 days since the opening of this AfD. I am not in a rush, I am just trying to follow policy. Benboy00 (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, 7 days is typically the minimum (see the first paragraph of WP:AFD). In fact, an AFD does not come to the attention of administrators for closure until it has hit the 7 day mark. They can and often do go for a couple of weeks. Indeed, with so few lines of discussion here, many admins would "relist" it for another week, minimum in order to gain more discussion. ES&L 18:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the relist process, and if an admin feels that there has not been enough debate, then I would fully expect them to relist. However, while that paragraph does contain the phrase "at least", I believe that is in reference to the fact that the discussion can be relisted (see this and this (just before "withdrawing a nomination")). It does not mean that AfD's should be allowed to continue for more than 7 days without relisting, which can be thought of as an extension of the deadline for seven more days. I would request that an uninvolved admin now either close the AfD, or relist. Benboy00 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete as non-notable. Way, way too early to claim notability. Once he starts getting articles about him in Variety and The New York Times, he's due for an article on Wikipedia. Until then, he's going to have to make do with a blog and twitter account, like every other struggling actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discounting the votes from the SPAs, there are only two !votes - the nomination for 'delete', and one 'keep'. —Darkwind (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Axl Hazarika

Axl Hazarika (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 subject of the article does not pass WP:GNG. He has not been covered by multiple reliable sources. Shovon (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep: Google search results in 68000 results then how come you say Indian musician Axl Hazarika is not covered. Go and read some newspapers. Don’t give baseless infos. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=google+search+rsults+in+80000+results+how+come+you+say+it+s+not+covered&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gws_rd=cr&ei=1P0uUrKvK82FrQf4soDoDw#channel=fflb&psj=1&q=axl+hazarika&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.93.232 (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — 117.254.93.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep, Don't Delete: 67,600 results on Google search with thousands of coverage on national, international media including online news portals and magazines clearly available on Google. This biographical article passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shezzinn (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Shezzinn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: I have read about this Indian rock artist in every local newspaper of northeast India. All links are available on Google. One of them: http://www.sentinelassam.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindas (talk • contribs) 18:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Brindas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep: A humble request to the author and moderators of this deletion discussion. Please close it. I think it’s a mistake. Axl Hazarika is one of the budding musician from Northeast India. Already he is over all the media coverage of the region. Above all, he is the only music artist from Northeast India launched by the leading music company VEVO. His official VEVO profile can be found at http://www.vevo.com/artist/axl-hazarika He clearly passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankhi12 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — Pankhi12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Please understand that this not a vote. So, instead of creating multiple accounts and voting to keep the article, pointing towards a few reliable sources, which cover the subject of the article will help. Btw, among the 59,700 Ghits and the sources given in the article, only the Sentinel one comes across to me as a reliable one. Shovon (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sorry to inform that your claim is absolutely wrong. May be you're not acquainted with the regional scene or maybe you are unaware about the recent news and happenings in northeast India. Not only The Sentinel, every leading news portal and television channel of the region has featured Axl Hazarika. Some of them are Newslive, Dy365, Frontier TV, The Assam Tribune, The Sentinel, The Eastern Chronicles, The Telegraph, The Shillong Times, The Dainik Asam, The NorthEast Today, etc. And being an Indian, you must know how to do a Google search .You are misleading the administrators by pointing towards Google.com instead of Google.co.in. A request to you, please don’t misuse your power as editor by trying to delete an article without valid points. It would have been appreciated if you could’ve contributed something better to the community instead of playing with the sentiments of an Indian musician and his fans. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindas (talk • contribs) 16:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Guys, have you ever heard of WP:AGF? Here's your Google.co.in hits results. The count is 58,800 and it still does not show that he has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Also, I guess a sockpuppet investigation is needed here! Shovon (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Already the links to multiple reliable sources are provided. Google search surely includes them in the 65,000 results found. Newslive, Dy365, Frontier TV, The Assam Tribune, The Sentinel, The Eastern Chronicles, The Telegraph, The Shillong Times, The Dainik Asam, The NorthEast Today are the top newspaper and journals of the region. I’m sure you are aware of these. So, I kindly request you to close this case as these are enough as good sources. Instead of discouraging any artists of our region we must support them. And as a senior editor it would have been appreciated if you would have added the sources properly instead of putting it to the deletion queue. Nothing personal against you. Hope you act sincerely. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindas (talk • contribs) 15:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Add them to the article. They don't do any good here. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The administrators will decide. But the sources are Reliable and Multiple. So there's no violation of Wikipedia rules. To be honest and sincere, the case should be closed by the creator since there's no point keeping it in the deletion queue until and unless he has any personal issues with the VEVO artist. Shezzinn (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources as noted above. Should article be about brothers instead of just one? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Axl Hazarika is a very popular artist in northeast India, signed up by VEVO music. Article is fine as 'Axl Hazarika' and also includes reliable sources of media coverage as mentioned above, hence no violation of Wiki rules. Shezzinn (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Duplicative !vote struck. postdlf (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think this AfD is problematic because of language issues. As a suggestion, would those voting "Keep" accept a soft delete, improve a version on the Bengali Wikipedia (assuming that that's the best language for a musician from Assam to be written in) instead, then come back here when it's in a good enough shape? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that it has to be the Assamese wikipedia. Even then, there are next to nothing mentions of the person in Assamese news sources. Shovon (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This guy Shovon seems to be complete unaware of Assam’s newspapers and journals. Newslive, Dy365, Frontier TV, The Assam Tribune, The Sentinel, The Eastern Chronicles, The Telegraph, The Shillong Times, The Dainik Asam, The NorthEast Today are the top newspaper and journals from Assam and Notheast India. It’s ridiculous that he wrote “Even then, there are next to nothing mentions of the person in Assamese news sources.” And Shovon looks like a paid Wikipedia editor who trying to tamper a music artist's wiki page. A thorough investigation is needed by the moderators and administrators on the intention of Shovon edit's on wikipedia. And keep is an English word. He is trying to direct this debate in the wrong direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindas (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Guys, you must be kidding by commenting about language issues! And Bengali is certainly not the best language for an Assamese. Since it's an English article, I think it should be continued in the same language, without questioning anybody's language skills. And I don't understand why Shovon is contradicting his own statements. Earlier he had accepted the fact that Axl Hazarika's news articles on Assamese prominent newspaper - The Sentinel are very much reliable, but now he says there are "next to nothing" mentions of Axl Hazarika on Assamese news sources. Shezzinn (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes, Shovon seems to have some vested interest in getting the page deleted. Need an investigation from the administrators of Wikipedia. If Shovon don’t have any knowledge about all these assamese newspapers and journals, then he certainly don’t qualify for this debate. Brindas (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect Vice City and Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), delete the other two. —Darkwind (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Vice City

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Vice City
• Articles for deletion/Vice City, Florida
• Articles for deletion/Vice City Killaz
• Articles for deletion/Vice City Multiplayer

Vice City (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 has been around for several years now, and contains very few realiable sources that don't involve the game itself, manuals, guides etc. Given the length of time that no change has occurred, I don't think there is a chance of the article improving. This isn't the days before game-specific wikis were around, and a transwiki probably isn't worth the bother since the various GTA wikis already have their own articles on this topic. I feel that any information that is worth keeping (if there is anything, that is) would be better merged into other articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto III era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto IV era) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Dorsal Axe 11:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Santos, San Andreas (2nd nomination), an Afd-nomination for a related article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete All (Replacing Vice City with a redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) A fictional place has the potential to have a standalone article, but first and foremost that needs to have out-of-universe elements like development and reception. These articles are all strictly in-universe, treating the cities as real-world locations. The content may be appropriate on wikias, but not here. As such, the content should be deleted, and the only one that is a viable search term without disamg is Vice City, which can point back to the game's page. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Delete All Four None of these articles are notable. Only one secondary source in all four articles, which might suggest notability for the game, but not the fictional city. Do Not Merge At most each of these fictioanl cities deserve one sentence in the game's article, if a WP:RS can be found to support it. Lentower (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Liberty City (x era) can definitely go, as they're superfluous to the main Liberty City article at best. Vice City only appears in the one game at present; so redirect Vice City to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. This leaves us with Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) to look at. First of all, it IS a perfectly valid redirect, so that option remains in play. I've been looking for some kind of coverage on how the city has evolved across the various games/generations, and am really surprised that none appear to exist. As a result, we're left with a valid redirect target, but nothing else; so redirect Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) to Grand Theft Auto (series), because WP:CHEAP comes into play. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all (well, redirect). WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTGUIDE and completely fails to not WP:INUNIVERSE. The actual reliable sources that describe these can all fit in the respective parent articles, so a WP:SPLIT isn't warranted either. 12:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Since a claim has been made for "significant and enduring cultural influence" of these maps, I am adding to my argument that I cannot locate sources that support this claim or--in fact--enough reliable, independent, in-depth sources focused on the topic (maps, not games) to pass WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. I'm willing to change my stance if such references are presented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Strong keep all. They contribute to reader understanding of these valuable topics; the settings of the Grand Theft Auto series have a significant and enduring cultural influence, and are likewise inspired by particular culture phenomena. Vice City and Liberty City are each independently notable, with considerable information about each. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• The thing is, they really aren't. Vice City is literally notable for being part of one game, so there's nothing that can't be covered in that article. As for Liberty City, one could, like me, reasonably expect there to be tonnes of sources on the city's development throughout the games - but there really isn't any, and it lacks any kind of independent notability that I could find. Note that San Andreas hasn't had an article, if it ever did, for a fair while now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What sources are you basing it on that individual maps of games are of "significant and enduring cultural influence"? A claim like this should be easy to back up with references, but several editors were not able to produce any. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep all per CaseyPenk. --Rhain1999 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

If you are supporting CaseyPenk's rationale, do you have sources to support their claims as well, because existence of such sources and thus such claims has been disputed? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all and recreate new redirects afterward. They currently contain nothing relevant to a general encyclopedia, and anything that could be added to actually establish notability would likely fit in the main articles. It's not like they couldn't be recreated were they to have too much weight dedicated to their real world aspects in the main article. TTN (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep (all , probably, but I don;t know the particulars well enough to judge relative impportance) It is only our overall coverage of a fictional work that needs material on such things as critical reception. When the amount of material is so large for an important work that the material needs split, some of it will be about the work itself only. That seems to be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's true for splits when the material would be suitable for the main article, but here it is predominantly original research and fancruft. The few significant claims and parallels with real-world are speculations unsupported by references. And should they be supported, that's a paragraph or two in the main article. Besides that, I personally don't think this is of any lasting encyclopedic value having received no WP:WAF-compliant reception. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete all. Generally speaking, a separate article for a video game setting is acceptable if the article predominantly describes the development and reception of the setting. The contributors to all four articles would do well at an external Grand Theft Auto Wikia, but as it stands not one of these articles has any encyclopedic information. The reader comes to Wikipedia to learn about the formulation of the game world and its influence from its real-life counterpart. Not one of these articles has achieved this in the many years that they've been around. I'm voting delete because almost none of the information can be merged back into the main articles as it's mostly fancruft. I'd encourage the editors to develop information on the "Setting" section of each respective page. If they can flesh that out with development and reception sections, only then would it be acceptable to have a standalone article for each city. CR4ZE (t) 14:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all into a single article, List of places in the Grand Theft Auto series, like it is done with other fictional places (e.g. List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia). --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all into one as Joshua Issac said. This new article will be a good reason for not creating any more settings related article for GTA. - Jayadevp13 00:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge all per Joshua Isaac. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • To all three above, no we actually generally don't have articles or lists of fictional places for works/series. The List of places in Narnia is very bad example as it primary-sourced glossary for all purposes (in its present state). A good example article for fictional places is Locations of Half-Life, which I point out that is sourced to secondary places and includes reception information. I don't believe from judging the available sources that this really can be done for the GTA locations. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Masem; generally, the one article here you could make a case for is Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) given that it's used in three separate games. The problem however, and the reason it should go, is that there's no adequate sections discussing the development ie the different design objectives for each iteration, and the reception for each. This article has existed for years but has never adequately covered the sections it should. Merging all three articles together would be redundant anyway, because then we bring up the "universes" problem, not to mention the fact that the article would still be filled with excessive cruft. CR4ZE (t) 04:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for piling on, but this is pretty much my thoughts as well. Moving unsourced material into a single article will not make it sourced or even notable as a group. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The material in the articles in question (including the Los Santos one) are sourced. These sources would preserved in the merged list. I have already seen news articles that refer to the reception of cities in the latest Grand Theft Auto game, with coverage being dedicated to in-game photographs taken by players. These sources would make the proposed list similar to the one about Half-Life mentioned above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Issac: What Wikipedia requires are sources that meet WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, etc. that are added to an article as references. If you and others would like to prevent these articles from being deleted, please add the sources you know of to the articles. Lentower (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Such sources are already there, though they are not so numerous. The Los Santos AfD also has a list of sources that was posted by one of the editors, so it has already been proven that these sources exist, so WP:N is satisfied. I quote from the notability guideline:

...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

I can't add references to an article that doesn't exist. If people want to delete, but don't oppose the merge before, then I'll merge everything together and put the references there, and the AfD can be about the resulting page.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

1) The articles are still there, so you can add Wikipedia quality sources. 2) Doing so is the best way to keep the articles. 3) Half of the articles in this AfD have no sources at al. 4) Only one of the sources in the other two, meet WP:RS, and it establishes notabilty of the game, not of the fictional city. 5) Many sources can not be used to establish notability. The phrase you quoted has to be understood in the context of all of WP:N as well as the other Wikipedia core principles, policies, and guidelines. Lentower (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Only one of the articles is unsourced. I have not read all of the third-party sources, but the one I did look at, the New York Times article, covers the city in detail. Other reliable sources, such as GamesMaster and IGN Entertainment, are also referenced. And contrary to what you said, many sources are used to establish notability; please see WP:GNG to read more about this. The clause that I quoted does not lose any meaning when understood in the context of other policies and guidelines; if you think that it means something different to what it says, then please elaborate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect all to Grand Theft Auto (series), per WP:GNG, WP:OR, unless indepedent reliable sources can be identified. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Only the nominator is backing deletion; sourcing isn't ideal but has been improved, with the consensus now being to keep. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Dataphor

Dataphor (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)

Topic has received a handful of mentions but no discussion in several database books. Sole google scholar hit is to an unpublished, uncited whitepaper. Based on this and the guidelines in WP:NSOFT, in my opinion there are not sufficient reliable sources to justify an article on this topic at this time. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge While I'm unable to find great notability inclusion criteria for Dataphor itself, I am able to find references to D4, the primary language built as a part of Dataphor. Hugh Darwen (who, maintains and develops the relational model), cited D4 as a potential Industrial D in his paper The Askew Wall. Disclaimer: I created the original stub for the article, and have made a few small changes since. McKay (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: Further research shows that it does meet inclusion criteria under "having historical or technical significance by reliable sources",
    • Dataphor is regarded as one of few DBMSs that follow Codd's 12 rules:
      • [20][21]
    • Dataphor is regarded as one of few DBMSs that are "Truly relational" (basically the same as following all 12 rules)
      • Fabian Pascal frequently refers to Dataphor as Truly-Relational. (note he includes it as one of three TRDBMSs in the bottom right corner of his blog)[22]
    • McKay (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi McKay. Thanks for doing the legwork. However, the three links you've given above are to blogs, and those are not generally considered reliable sources (see WP:BLOGS for the particulars). "The Askew Wall" is also self-published as best I can tell. Do you know of any trade press articles on Dataphor? Textbooks that mention it? Peer-reviewed pubs? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not aware of any trade press articles that have been published in the past decade. There were some articles about it over 10 years ago, when they did a big marketing push, but I'm not aware of any pushes they've done recently. Sure they're blogs, but they're industry expert blogs. I'd consider Fabian Pascal, akin to Schneider on Security, for what it's worth. I'd be surprised if there were any books published about it, but it might be mentioned in later editions of The Third Manifesto. The Askew Wall is a lecture that has been given by Hugh Darwen (an industry expert, who was not involved in the creation of D4) several times, internationally. Darwin is not a professor with the University of Warwick, so that link would be considered not self published? But he does have close ties to that university, and they have hosted it for him. According to CiteSeer "This lecture descends from one first given to a British Computer Society audience in December, 1987. In the early 1990s it found its way around various conferences and British universities, including Warwick." (citeseer only directly hosts the notes to the slides to the lecture?). I heard Darwen give his "The Askew Wall" lecture at Brigham Young University (in the United States) (and he did mention D4 / Dataphor), about 10 years ago. I don't know if there's more.McKay (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• What we're looking for are publications where the editor/publisher and writer are distinct entities, and the editor/publisher exerts some amount of control over the results. That excludes blogs and presentations. Any book (not from a vanity press), any peer-reviewed journal article, and most trade press articles are fine; press releases aren't. See WP:SELFPUBLISH for an extended discussion, and WP:NSOFT for guidance on notability for software. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  [23] I know this isn't quite what you're looking for, but this is an example of competitors referencing Dataphor in whitepapers (which is kinda self-published, but found all over the web). McKay (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

  Chris Date name drops Dataphor all the time

  does this reference count as trade press?

  What about Dr. Dobbs? McKay (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source has to do something more than mentioning the article. The r20 whitepaper and the Register article only mention Dataphor (tries to) implement the third manifesto (and both devote just a single sentence to doing so). The Dr. Dobbs mention is a press release. The mpcmag may be a dead link (although my connectivity isn't the best at the moment). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• deletekeep It exists, but is anyone else paying attention to it? I've worked on a dozen of very similar proprietary languages like this. Just two of them maybe approached notability. In general, a product like this doesn't unless some independent industry-credible commentator gives it some serious study. I'm seeing none of that here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that Fabian Pascal, Hugh Darwen, and Chris Date (who exceed your "industry-credible" level and are "industry-leaders"?) have "give[n] it serious study". McKay (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I see those three names together and I reach for my dinosaur hunting rifle, but I agree that these are the calibre of commentator who convey notability. If you can add some sourcing from them to the article, and if it says at least as much as "I think Dataphor is significant / significantly good / significantly bad", then I'd be happy to keep this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Added a new section covering expert opinions on the project.McKay (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I think there's still room for expansion here, as it would be good to explain the "Dataphor is the only truly relational product on the market" issue in depth. The attention paid to it by heavy-hitters like Date are enough to answer for notability though. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Keep per the sources added by McKay. Even the though the Fabian Pascal source is a blog, it is acceptable per WP:USERG: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." --Cerebellum (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Bensalem_Township,_Pennsylvania#Jewish_religious_life. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Bensalem Jewish Outreach Center

Bensalem Jewish Outreach Center (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 organization. Speedy declined on the presumption that this organization qualifies as a school since it offers preschool and continuing education programs. So, taking to AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Listed only in local directories and blogs in such - no real reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WikiDan61 and Nwlaw63. High schools are often kept, but this is not a high school. Dear Wikipedians: Please always point the article creator to some alternative outlets. Dear Ben Lazer (talk · contribs): Perhaps there exists some alternative outlet which is willing to host article you created: maybe some company-information wiki or some such. I shall use a {{talkback}} template to point you here. All the best, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep This organization includes a Kollel. A Kollel is post-graduate institution of higher institution of higher learning. A Kollel is essentially a full-time yeshiva for married men for the advanced study of the Talmud and Rabbinic literature. In fact, many yeshivas serve for both unmarried and Kollel students with virtually the same curriculum. As such this organization includes a school, and therefore is considered inherently notable as per WP:ORGSIG (being the exception to the rule "No company or organization is considered inherently notable"). This is also confirmed by WP:NONPROFIT "Articles on schools are kept without regard to notability".

As per Nwlaw63 - other than the notability issue - I don't see why directories, blogs, and even the organization's website, don't clearly demonstrate clearly that they simply exist... Ben Lazer (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Please keep in mind that while schools are specifically exempted from speedy deletion, they are not exempt from all deletion processes, and must still meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I see no evidence that this organization meets either. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Both my previos quotes were taken from the page WP:ORG. This is the page that documents the Wikipedia notability guideline for organizations and companies. This is NOT the page for the Criteria for speedy deletion. The quotes were accurate quotes at the time that I quoted them. The issue is that the notability guideline for schools is being debated.Their seems to be some sort of edit war there. See the history of WP:ORG's edits. Until this issue is resolved Bensalem Jewish Outreach Center shouldn't be deteted.Ben Lazer (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Ben, you appear to have misread the relevant guideline. WP:ORGSIG specifically states:

      No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools.

The version of the guideline you quoted was, unfortunately, a version that had been vandalized by a disgruntled user. Merely claiming "It can't be deleted; it's a school." isn't going to get you very far. Merely claiming that citations exist to prove the organization exists aren't sufficient. Mere existence is not the bar we're trying to meet here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment The notability guidelines are crystal clear: NO organization is exempt from them, and this Center clearly doesn't demonstrate notability in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable per WP:ORG. All organisations are required to meet our notability criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Unable to find any reliable sources that talk about this organization. Yoninah (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania#Jewish religious life where this is a real, albeit minor, growing Jewish religious network and organization. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Change !vote to Merge and Redirect to Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania#Jewish religious life per IZAK, although all the information is already there, and sourced to the primary source. Yoninah (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If its already there, why vote merge not simply redirect? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Bensalem Township, Pennsylvania#Jewish religious life, per WP:ORG. Content already there; nothing to retain in edit history here. -- Trevj (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Portfolio management for new products

Portfolio management for new products (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)

So I saw this as a printout at my workplace and was like, what, we rely on Wikipedia articles, and that kind of article? It reads like a content fork of IT portfolio management, Application Portfolio Management and/or Project portfolio management. It's essentially unmaintained since its creation in 2006. Merging any content to the aforementioned articles appears difficult because of the lack of inline attribution. Deletion as an abandoned content fork seems most appropriate.  Sandstein  07:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per Sandstein and also WP:NOTGUIDE. Ansh666 08:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete per the above and WP:NOTHOWTO. Stalwart111 10:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

No Alternative Media Group

No Alternative Media 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)

advertising and coat rack. Article fails to show notability with all given sources being about the founders. Most Google hits are social media or founder-related. So fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep; Thanks for your concern The Banner. There's much more improvement to be done. There's a small history with the Clear Channel Communications controversy this company had. There's an International Band Project that supports a youth center with some notable bands that will going under music in the future. Upcoming indie/major film work, more clients and more information. This is not an advertising article, but an established independent company article like any other indie company label that has an article on here. Creating this article has taught me even more about this company. - hollathag 11 September 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollathag (talk • contribs) 12:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this passes for an article, it's a fast growing company in film production with much more crediting. The studio building of the company is also historic that was built in 1807, which I think can somehow be put in there. - FlieGuy 4:54. 11 September 2013 (CT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.185.240 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, This article is rather interesting and shows it's notability through references and further search. I think there is room for improvement if more. This is an independent film company upon many others that have an article on here. So it passes in my book. - User:iNetwrkk 3:12am (EST) 12 September 2013 — iNetwrkk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Struck as duplicate vote; see SPI. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete The company exists, yes... but fails the inclusion criteria set at WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: And though I hope I am wrong, in looking at the contributions of Hollathag, 64.254.185.240, and iNetwrkk (See interactions), I felt it sadly necessary to request a sockpuppet investigation. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no hits in google books, imdb isn't a reliable source and coverage in decent independent sources seems non existent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of the sources in the article at the moment are really acceptable. Zero book and news hits. Of web hits, I found something asserting they exist, a passing mention, a press release, a passing mention and another passing mention. Fails WP:GNG. Could I request Hallathag, 64.254.185.240 and iNetwrkk read, respectively, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INTERESTING. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment I note that Hollathag (talk · contribs) and INetwrkk (talk · contribs) have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disney Special Editions

Disney Special Editions (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)

Despite previously having been a regular editor of this page, I'm increasingly starting to think that the article is not notable per WP:DIRECTORY. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Nominator has correct reasoning that WP:DIRECTORY is definitely what this article is. Additionally, regular release of catalog releases under a fancy banner isn't something notable, not withstanding Disney's branding and the Disney Vault 'legend'. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Considering that this is about products of the unarguably notable Disney Corporation, one wonders if the numerous independent sources which speak toward the topic of "Disney Special Editions" might be used to source the article and show enough notability so that this might be worth keeping under WP:LISTPURP and WP:SALAT. Miami Herald Cinemblend Muso's Guide DVD Talk London Free Press Big Cartoon Database IGN Coming Soon etc. Just wondering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Michael - Some of those references are not for UK editions (which is supposedly the focus of the page) but for the US editions, which are covered at Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions. One of them is a forum hoax also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So, the US versions of Disney Specials are notable but the UK are not. We might hope that UK Disney aficionados might offer UK coverage to match notability of the US equivalents. If not, que sera sera Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}.

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

I think the concept of "Platinum" and "Diamond" editions may be worthy of inclusion - this is just an extension of that concept which amounts to little more than a UK release WP:CATALOG. As I said, I've edited it myself in the past, but have always considered it a borderline case - as time goes on, it seems less reliable and encyclopedic. "Special Edition" doesn't really mean much these days. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough... and I am even less invested than you. If the British want it they can come up with sourcing. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was delete . The article as it stands is really bad and a poor testament to alleged notability, which the discussion here failed to unambiguously assert. If it is recreated, it should be a lot more rigorous. Shii (tock) 04:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Kathryn Hamm

Kathryn Hamm (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)

Nonnotable author. No independent sources cited in article (just author's own sites). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete Her only book is in just 4 libraries according to WorldCat. It appears to be self-published: "Authentic Weddings" has published this book and nothing else. The refs all seem to be straight PR. the ones listed in the body of the article are her own site. The ones at the bottom, #1 is so promotional it mentions her name (or--for some reason I do not understand-- her mothers name--in almost every paragraph; #2 almost identical, and the fact that GoodMorning America produced it doesn't make it less so; #3 similar; #4 unreliable source for a book review; #5 seems straightforward advertising; #6 $7 . This illustrates the weakness of GNG--that news sources carry an article shows the persistence of the pr agent, not the notability. News sources minus accomplishments is not notability. the same sources, if there were any accomplishments , could be seen differently. The only objective measure, the success of her book, is what can be relied on. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this rationale: There is nothing in the notability guidelines about library holdings, libraries are not always a viable metric of notability. Nor is there a problem with self-published books, there are many very successful and notable books that are self published. As for the refs being "PR", I disagree, these are legitimate reliable sources. Her notability is clearly laid out in the sources, she is a pioneer and leader in the field of gay weddings. GNG is not "weak", and the "success of her book" is not how we determine notability otherwise every book on the NYT bestseller list would be notable, and we don't do that. Notability is measured by how much press coverage a book gets and this one has at least twelve reliable sources, far more than most that show up at AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was redirect to Lego Ninjago. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Garmadon

Lloyd Garmadon (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 GNG; I cannot find any reliable, third-party sources online. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 18:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lego Ninjago. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as an obvious hoax This is clearly a hoax - in addition to duffbeerforme's analysis, there's no mentions of the band at all in the archives of Canberra's street music publication BMA [24], and the article was full of nonsense claims. I've also deleted the articles about individual members of the band (one of which had been deleted before on several occasions) and blocked the editor responsible for them. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Burkenburg

Burkenburg (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)

Part exageration, part haox, part not notable cruft. Sources are primary, unrelated or fake. No such Canberra Times ref. No Heinz Havemeister: Burkenburg and its history. Made up quote from Herald Sun. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burkenburg and it's recreation here with a different fake quote. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Stjohnny (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)I do believe you should back up your so called evidence before actually posting this. It does say reliable references, yes? I would actually like to see proof of such crap you have stated here. And being a Canberran myself it would be extremely obvious these people in this band are very recognised. You will need more evidence in order to actually make a difference, but your stupidity is probably superior than your argument.

Re: Canberra Times: Searching in a database of newspapers that includes Canberra Times I was unable to find any mention of Burkenburg. Searching for the title "A multicultural band now in the music industry?" also came up empty. It's also an unlikely title for an article about this little band. BELLA, a four-year-old, short-haired domestic cat got more coverage in that weeks papers. She loves face scratches and pats, but wont ask for them constantly.

Re Havemeister: Using the ISBN from the article and going to worldcat gives us Feeling B : Punk im Osten ; mix mir einen Drink ; ausfu¨hrliche Gespra¨che mit Flake, Paul Landers und vielen anderen

Publisher: Berlin : Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf, 2003. Not Burkenburg and its history, 2013

The is a 2013 book by Havemeister but it's Wir wollen immer artig sein: Punk, New Wave, HipHop und Independent-Szene in der DDR 1980-1990 by Ronald Galenza and Heinz Havemeister (1 Sep 2013) not Not Burkenburg and its history

Re Sunday Herald Sun: Whats the actual quote from the paper? "German is an angry language." [25] or "German is a powerful language." [26]? Did the paper go back and change their newspaper or is someone faking quotes? Why so vague in the ref, no date, no title, no author, just the paper. Searching google for Burkenberg and Sunday Herald Sun comes up with empty. Searching the Herald Suns site comes up with no results.

Face it kid. You're a liar and you've been caught out. You're feeble personal attack doesn't change that. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael Alford (artist)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Michael Alford (artist)
• Articles for deletion/Michael Alford (artist) (2nd nomination)

Michael Alford (artist) (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 was moved into the incubator in late 2011. It sat there untouched throughout 2012. There were a few relatively minor edits earlier this year, the most substantive of which was the addition of one new external link. It has not been edited at all in the last seven months, so incubation did not appear to be paying off, and I don't believe the few edits it has gotten during this very long "incubation" have rectified the issues identified at the previous AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to Keep. He's covered extensively here. And he continues to be quite active with gallery shows. I think it's enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete -- He may have gained minor prominence through his period as a war artist, with a subsequent exhibition, but I am doubtful whether this amounts to WP notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CREATIVE #4, significant exhibitions and permanent collections. No smoking gun here but in total with all the exhibitions and awards adds up to something beyond norm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete for the same reasons as Peterkingiron - artist who has participated in some international group exhibtions and won a few non-notable gallery awards. I can't find any significant coverage about him or any of his work, other than the "A" volume of the vast 'Artists in Britain Since 1945'. Sionk (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. It may be appropriate to propose a merge with the group article, or a siege article if it's created. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

James Ellison (polygamist)

James Ellison (polygamist) (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 reidrected this article to the related The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, as there is no independent notability. I was reverted almost immediately byb Yworo (talk · contribs) who stated "you don't get to make that decision unilaterally", obviously unaware of WP:BOLD. Regardless, I stand by my belief that there this person has no independent notability, and I therefore suggest the article is redirected, or deleted. GiantSnowman 15:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Subject is clearly notable, with many news sources and books of the time covering him. He founded a notable organization, was involved in a notable raid, had notable charges levelled against him, the court case was notable, etc. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• How is he (i.e. the actual person) notable? Your claim is not verified in any reliable sources, and notability is not inherited - just because he was a founder of a notable organisation does not make him independently notable, hence my redirect. GiantSnowman 15:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• So you haven't bothered to look for sources, because if you had, you'd have found them. Yworo (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE and WP:BURDEN. GiantSnowman 16:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE: "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". It's the nominators responsibilty. You clearly stated your main concern was notability. As for WP:BURDEN, I take it seriously and have added nine sources to the article already. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Since almost the entire article is about the siege, as are almost all of the sources, doesn't WP:BLP1E come into play? An article on the siege would be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if it's a notable event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely; not independently notable. Crating an article on the siege, or simply improving the existing article on the organisation involved makes sense; an article on this person does not. GiantSnowman 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was merge to R. Kelly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Rockland Records

Rockland Records (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 don't see this as being notable. Perhaps some part of the falling out between Sparkle and R. Kelly could be merged into one's article or the other's, but as a stand alone article, there simply isn't notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Another user claimed on my talk page that the label is notable (under the name "Rock Land Records" because of two platinum albums - Sparkle (Sparkle album) and Life (soundtrack) - but while it's clear that Rock Land is involved in the production of the second one at least, I'm just not seeing sources with non-trivial coverage of Rockland/Rock Land Records. I can't get around the paywall for three articles, but the abstracts make it appear that coverage is on R. Kelly, not Rock Land. Notability is not inherited, and just because the albums or the label's owner are notable does not mean that the record label itself is. That being said, labels seems to be a gap in Wikipedia:Notability (music) that could use addressing. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• "I don't see this as being notable." - Does that mean it fails WP:N, or you can't find any sources for it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see "Significant coverage" that is "independent" of R. Kelly. It could be that the three articles that mention "Rock Land Records" but are behind paywalls would push this over the "Significant coverage" line, but going by the abstracts of those articles, which focus on R. Kelly and not on the label, I would have to say that based on the sources I could find, "Significant coverage", and therefore the GNG, isn't met. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
• Merge with R. Kelly, but with all the fluff unrelated to the label removed. I've thought a lot about this, much more time than it deserves undoubtedly. My initial inclination is to keep, as the article might qualify for "mid-importance" on WikiProject Record Labels, because of chart success. It is more than a vanity label, as there are signed artists other than Kelly, so this might be viewed as no more of a vanity label than Madonna's Maverick Records. However, I can't find that the label has actual back-office personnell a real record label would have, it seems to be just a brand attached to R. Kelly productions. All issues are distributed/marketed by other established "major" labels. If evidence/sources present themselves in the future, then this article can be re-created easily enough, there's so little here truly worth keeping. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Selective merge to R. Kelly, per WP:NCORP. -- Trevj (talk) 11:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

William Tomicki

William Tomicki (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 actual evidence of notability for this magazine writer. Highly promotional article, emphasizing quotations from PR sources on his merits DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Possible Keep as WP:CREATIVE #3, founder and editor of ENTREE travel magazine with 12,000 subscribers and 30+ years old,[27] it has been reviewed in Chicago Tribune, NY Times, NY Times, LA Times. Found excerpts it was reviewed in Travel & Leisure and Vogue but can't find links. Nobel Prize nomination is rich since anyone can nominate, if the judges consider the nomination is sealed for 50 years. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks suspiciously like a vanity page. None of the sources indicate sufficient notability. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 09:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously vanity but looking beyond content issues which can be fixed. I thought about editing it but wanted to give others a chance to possibly investigate the claims for notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd chopped out a bit of spam: I;d encourage anyone who sees potential value here to hack away. Also, re this "chevalier" thing: the link goes to the wrong place, but is the article claiming the subject is really a member of the Legion of Honour? A Google search for "Légion d'honneur" and "William Tomicki" yields zip, I see. If this is a flat-out lie, I may owe the nominator an even bigger apology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that claim is unsourced (and uncertain) - we can't hold the topic of the article personally responsible to the poor quality of whoever wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite right. The article hasn't been tagged as an autiobio page and I make no such claim. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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) 16:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete per WP:ANYBIO. My searches turned up nothing significant, and I too found no reference for the Légion d'honneur claim. -- Trevj (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. There is (weak) consensus that the article can not be kept without sources and should be deleted or redirected. There is no consensus on whether it should be deleted or redirected, and I close this as redirect just for the case it can be easier restored once reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Abra-Catastrophe!

Abra-Catastrophe! (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 film has no sources, no reception from ratings or reviews, all nothing but an non-notable film and television episode. JJ98 (Talk) 19:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Weak Keep per topic meeting just notability criteria. I believe the nominator intended to write that he wished a deletion because the "article" had no sourcing, but had he looked, he would have found topic sources DO exist. With a little looking I quickly found, among others, a lengthy DVD Talk review and a New York Times mini review. Sure, this film is not at the same level of notability of Star Wars films, but we might consider keeping this and simply tagging it for sourcing and cleanup through regular editing... or at the very worst consider a soft redirect to The Fairly OddParents. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to episode list. The DVDTalk review seems to be the only reliable source. The New York Times piece is not a review - it's just a copy of the AllMovie summary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect It should be redirected to the main episode list. Mouseinphilly (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that this at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Keep Clearly notable. It just needs sources, which are abundant online. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Saying "clearly notable" and then dumping us at a Google search isn't a very good way to prove notability exists... Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect unless significant coverage can be established. TTN (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Fairly OddParents. I searched and found nothing more than that already stated above (which isn't enough for WP:GNG). -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Power Animal (Gaoranger)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Power Animal (Gaoranger)
• Articles for deletion/Power Animal (Gaoranger) (2nd nomination)

Power Animal (Gaoranger) (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 does not establish notability independent of Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. In six years, not a single source has been added to this article, and it remains a nightmare of in-universe fancruft. While this does not necessarily indicate that the content is unverifiable, it's a huge red flag. This article belongs on Wikia, where they don't care about sources, notability, or in-universe writing. It's completely unsuited for Wikipedia, as I can't find any reliable sources discussing this in depth. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• merge or redirect I can't say it's significant enough for a separate article, but it should certainly not be deleted. Asking for deletion is saying that we should not even have a cross-reference, that someone who comes here and looks for it will find nothing. Has the nom any reason to say that such is appropriate? If there's no reason against redirection, we shouldn't be asking for deletion. Anything someone might want to look up, for which there's relevant content in Wikipedia, should have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

• Delete - no reliable sources to support independent notability. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
• Delete (or Merge into Hyakujuu Sentai Gaoranger), no significant coverage from secondary and independent sources that would establish notability per WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete . Rumors of secondary source coverage prove greatly exaggerated. Shii (tock) 04:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

BDSM: It's Not What You Think!

BDSM: It's Not What You Think! (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 non-notable documentary that relies on primary sources. It fails WP:NFILMS, as it lacks critical reviews, awards, or wide release. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Student project basically. Could not find independent sources. jni (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and thus WP:NF. While it can be verified that the thing has screened, it does not help that many of the article's refs are deadlinks.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to have received a nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood

Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood (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)

For four years totally unsourced article. Should be removed. Matthiasb (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also the article shows a clear bias. --Matthiasb (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• The nominator's rationale points to a need for cleanup, not deletion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Joy. Unsourced material is no reason for deletion. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep has numerous excellent sources in Google Books (did nom check for sourcing before nominating?). Seems to be a notable Croatian terrorist/dissident organization operating during the Communist era 1960s and early 70s. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to The Farm (U.S. band). Consensus is individual does not meet MUSICBIO outside of the band, therefore merge (non-admin closure) ES&L 10:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Nick Hoffman

Nick Hoffman (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 notability outside The Farm (U.S. band). Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO on his own. No secondary sourcing found that does not relate to The Farm; sources in article are not reliable. Redirects constantly undone by Lizfarm (talk · contribs), an obvious WP:SPA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Redirect to The Farm (U.S. band). Frankly, I'm surprised User:Lizfarm hadn't been warned for all the reverts she did, but I took care of that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Does have notability outside The Farm; does meet Music Bio on his own, does have reliable article sources, does have sources not related to The Farm. Has been part of country music industry since 1998 when he joined the band High Noon which is in the Minnesota Country Music Hall of Fame. From 2000 to 2012 he was a member of the Kenny Chesney band. Toured for over a decade with him and was recorded on his albums and dvd; dvd had nationwide theater release pre store release. The Farm formed in 2011. In 2012 He won the Country Music Association Touring Musician of the Year award.Lizfarm (talk) 11:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to The Farm (U.S. band). He does appear to have some notability outside of that band, particularly as part of Kenny Chesney's band, and there are sources covering him ([28], [29], [30]) but he seems to be best known for The Farm and his other activities could easily be summarised there. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per sources from Michig. Meets WP:N and while the best editorial decision might be to merge, there does appear to be plenty about this artist that is independent of the FARM. No overwhelming objection to a merge, especially as the article as written is overly promotional. Hobit (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Bellepark (talk · contribs) keeps describing it as a neologism but refuses to accept that we don't do neologisms. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Affinity Social Network Community

Affinity Social Network Community (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:Neologism, no Google hits, notability not established. Seems to be original research. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. A whopping eight Ghits, all of them Wikipedia. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I was going to give the creator the benefit of the doubt because s/he is a new editor and thus might not understand what Wikipedia is all about, but judging from his/her talk page, it seems more like a case of WP:IDHT. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, either per WP:CSD#G3 or WP:CSD#A7. There's absolutely nothing on Google that is related to the subject. Even if it does exist, perhaps it is, at present, a planned group. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Redacting A7 arguments as the subject is not an organisation. I have, however, investigated the sources posted there and virtually none of them mentioned the term in question. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia

Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia (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 doesn't include any independent sources, they're both from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep. On what grounds do you want to delete this? The three-sentence article (with two of its three sentences establishing the fact that the article's subject merely exists as such) is not supported by enough sources for your liking?! Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia undeniably does exist. I don't need to be convinced of that by 17 sources. What do you think those 30+ articles in other languages describe?Zvonko (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

We have notability guidelines to decide which articles should be kept or created. One of the requirements is significant coverage from third-party sources (that is, not affiliated with the subject) and the article doesn't meet it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were to apply all of the points described in that guideline with as much scrutiny and zealotry as the tone with which they're written suggests, just about half of the English Wikipedia would have to disappear. Besides, you seem to be very casually overlooking the fact that the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is apparently notable enough to exist as a language variant of Wikipedia as well as to be described in 30+ other language variants of Wikipedia.Zvonko (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The notability of Serbo-Croatian has nothing to do with the notability of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, since notability is not inherited.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, not Serbo-Croatian language. Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia has an article on 25 Wikipedias, not including the English Wikipedia.Zvonko (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not relevant, other Wikipedias may have laxer inclusion standards than en.wiki. They don't count as a precedent since they follow different policies.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Keep. There are also independent sources related to this topic:

• 1) Literary Festival "Na pola puta": (Najluđe je to što uza hrvatsku, srpsku i bosansku postoji još i srpskohrvatska wikipedija koja doslovce sabire maline i kupine, to jest, kopira kvalitetne članke s preostale tri wikipedije i proširuje tematske cjeline prevodima s engleske wikipedije, dok se osjetljive teme koje se tiču bliske povijesti pažljivo zaobilaze. Srpskohrvatska wikipedija je i najležernija u pogledu jezika i pisma, pa dozvoljava da se piše bilo kojim od tri jezika (sr, hr, bs) i dva pisma, iako preferira latinicu.)
• 2) Nezavisna Wikipedija hrvatska(Vjerojatni uzrok lošoj kvaliteti kako hrvatske tako i srpske Wikipedije (možda je srpskohrvatska Wikipedija ipak nešto bolja?) je činjenica da još premalo ljudi sudjeluje u njihovom uređivanju.)
• 3) Extracting bilingual word pairs from Wikipedia (page 23) (Each Wikipedia article can provide links to other articles on the same subject in different languages, so for example on the English article for socialism there is a link to the same article, socijalizam, on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia.)
• 4) A rule-based machine translation system from Serbo-Croatian to Macedonian (Thus the monolingual dictionary for Serbo-Croatian has been developed almost from scratch, with the aid of a Croatian grammar (Barić et al., 1997), and on-line resources such as Hrvatski jeziˇcni portal, wiktionaries and Wikipedia, as well as an SETimes corpus10 (Tyers and Alperen, 2010) and a corpus composed from the Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedias.)
• 5) Do as I do: leadership in the Wikipedia (Serbo-Croatian wikipedia used as a source in independent essay-Wales, J. (2005). Re: Ant: Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia - a policy question? wikipedia-l. Retrieved on October 16, 2005 )
• 6) Neutral or National Point of View? A Comparison of Srebrenica articles across Wikipedia's language versions (...the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia generally was meant to be liberal and antinationalist in outlook. (page 3)/ Indeed, the discussion behind the language versions themselves shows dissensus among article editors and throws into stark relief the call for separate Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, as opposed to a single Serbo-Croatian one, as we detail below. (page 5)/..............)
• 7) From Who and What to How and Why – The Future of Online Encyclopaedias--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

They're independent, but several of them are self-published and the extent of their coverage of the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia is trivial, there is nothing more than a brief mention, it's not material that could be added realistically to the article. Number 6 is also unlikely to be a good source for such a sweeping claim.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Your objections are partially accurate. Again, I do not agree in part that this sources can not be added realistically to the article. From first one you can put that it is the only of 4 Wikipedias on varieties of Serbo-Croatian that accepts different varieties of Serbo-Croatian language. From sources 2 and 6 you can add that in compaction with other Wikipedias on Serbo-Croatian, this one is described as most impartial one in controversial local topics. In this case you already have 3 independent sources in that article. Other Articles, and especially 5, although not so useful for article content, still show citation of this Wikipedia what contributes to its notability.--MirkoS18 (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep - Well, this is quite a ridiculous request, isn't it? Without any detailed analysis, I have found this little quaint article that has 2 references and 3 external links. By pure chance, all 5 links lead to the Lithuanian Wikipedia and it's articles. There is an expansion template located on top of that article, but I cannot see a deletion template. Double standards, perhaps? Or some blatant misinterpretation of the rules?

Sh.Wiki has about 90,000 articles, some of which are better than on any other Wikipedia (this article, for example, is even better than the one on the French Wikipedia and we have an excellent coverage of anime related topics), and a vast majority of them is better than their counterparts on Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian Wikipedias. I myself am an administrator on the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia and I do not see why a Wikipedia that is, in several months time, going to reach 100,000 articles should not have an article on the English Wikipedia?

As far as the mentioned guidelines go, why is there no deletion template on the before mentioned Lithuanian Wikipedia article? What about this (it has one "third-party source" and it is exclusively related to the number of users and is surely outdated), this and this? This is just a brief outlook of Wikipedia-related articles that have the same status as this article, with one exception - they do not have a deletion template? I should only have to ask why? If we were to be equal towards everyone, this Wikipedia should have it's article count reduced by four more, at least! As far as I am concerned, this is a rather ridiculous request with absolutely no basis and should be rejected as soon as possible --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Lithuanian Wikipedia doesn't have a deletion tag simply because nobody nominated it for deletion yet, you are free to nominate it if you think it should also be deleted. Anyway, your vote is unlikely to be considered as it is your only contribution to Wikipedia so far.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Such great counter-arguments from your side, mon prince, I am truly amazed :) Also, lovely double-standards :D --Edgar Allan Poe (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep - There was once a person who suggested deleting all articles on Wikipedias in other languages. I won't even bother to link that discussion here, if you're interested, you will surely be able find it by yourself. --GedeonWolf (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about the notability of this specific edition of Wikipedia rather than all of the articles in the series.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That´s political project. So I suggest do delete asap--78.23.154.210 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

keep This Wikipedia (and three more SC wikipedias) were subject of multiple non-trivial published works. -- Bojan  Talk  07:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per MirkoS18. AfD is not meant for clean-up. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia

Ukrainian Wikipedia (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:WEBCRIT, it has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works", the only source currently included falls under the exception for trivial coverage. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Speed keep for obvious reason (such as Ukrainian Wikipedia is the fastest-growing among Wikipedias); reprimand nominator at WP:ANI per WP:TROLL. Ukrained2012 (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ukrained2012 sent me a warning for "deliberately introducing incorrect information" for no other reason than starting this AfD. What he did not do was proving that the Ukraininan Wikipedia has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works", which is one of the requirements for keeping this article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there are any requirements for keeping the articles that reflect issues of common knowledge, such as the one on the official Wikimedia Foundation project with 400.000+ legitimately-kept articles that repeatedly held official WP meets and events. Ladies and gentlemen, as a busy editor, I lack knowledge of Wikipedia procedures needed to properly qualify the actions of this AfD's nominator, and asking for help with that. My humble guesses are WP:TROLL and WP:DISRUPT, but in no way am I accusing anyone in anything. Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. Personally, I think this is a preposterous nomination! Is the nominator kidding? There are 46 interwiki articles on the same topic — is the nominator seriously suggesting that all of these are spurious? One can only say that no one has worked on the article so far to provide good references — this is a far cry from disingenuously quoting WP:WEBCRIT to imply that the topic Ukrainian Wikipedia has not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". --Very trivial (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links don't count as published works for the purpose of WP:WEBCRIT, obviously. You're free to try and prove the existence of actual non-trivial coverage rather than dismissing the question as absurd. Unless this can be established, the article should be deleted, per policy.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I never stated that interwiki links equal "published works", so please refrain from twisting my words to further your argument. If you didn't understand what I said, I'll repeat it in another way: the issue you raise is one of notability and you are spuriously trying to equate lack of references in the article, with lack of notability. You are asserting that the article is not significant because the web site has "not been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". This is an extraordinary claim! You are using the fallacious argument that because the article has no references, the subject ie. the 14th largest Wikipedia in the World is not significant and has to be deleted! Even without further work on the article, I believe that a reasonable person presented with the fact that 46 other language Wikipedias regard Ukrainian Wikipedia as a significant enough article to have on their language Wikipedias, would question what drove you to make this nomination?? This type of vexatious nomination for destroying an article only wastes the energy of editors who could be doing more useful work actually improving articles. --Very trivial (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Other wikipedias have different inclusion policies so that's irrelevant to the AfD. What is relevant is the presence, again, of sources that meet webcrit, of which there are none currently.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Even coverage in English coverage is far beyond trivial: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Concerning non-English sources, the subject had been covered over 1,000 times in Ukrainian and Russian language sources, see uk:ВП:ППВ. The article in its current version also has references to scholarly articles on the subject by O. Chyrkov and A. Bondarenko as well as a publication in one of the leading national newspapers, Den — NickK (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Note: User:Very trivial has added several sources and new content, if this is coming from reliable and third-party sources I don't object to keeping the article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY and WP:BEFORE: it has been improved, and could be even better if someone who reads Ukrainian could translate parts of the article from that Wiki. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(90762) 1993 TV3

(90762) 1993 TV3 (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)

Completely non-notable asteroid, fails every criterion of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

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

90397_Rasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

90226_Byronsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

90937_Josefdufek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

90936_Neronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(306382)_1993_SL9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(195090)_2002_CL116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(149086)_2002_CM116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(95335)_2002_CU118 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(78955)_2003_SQ221 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

65210_Stichius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(65147)_2002_CN116 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(32847)_1992_JO3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(23438)_1984_SZ5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

15705_Hautot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

13554_Decleir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11832_Pustylnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11829_Tuvikene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11538_Brunico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(10271)_1980_TV2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11517_Esteracuna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11828_Vargha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

11392_Paulpeeters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22948_Maidanak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22951_Okabekazuko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

22952_Hommasachi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

19306_Voves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

19230_Sugazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

19228_Uemuraikuo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

20193_Yakushima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

20188_Chelyabinsk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

20115_Niheihajime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

8129_Michaelbusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

8023_Josephwalker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

8022_Scottcrossfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7909_Ziffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7828_Noriyositosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

7664_Namahage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7518)_1989_FG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7517)_1989_AD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7514)_1986_ED (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7510)_1978_UF6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7473)_1992_EC4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7471)_1991_YD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7466)_1989_VC2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7432)_1993_HL5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7431)_1993_FN41 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7428)_1992_YM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7427)_1992_VD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7417)_1990_YE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7409)_1990_BS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7395)_1985_RP1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7348)_1993_FJ22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(7338)_1990_VJ3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18730_Wingip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18728_Grammier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18649_Fabrega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18611_Baudelaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18565_Selg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18564_Caseyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18563_Danigoldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18561_Fengningding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18553_Kinkakuji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18520_Wolfratshausen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18509_Bellini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18469_Hakodate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18461_Seiichikanno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18431_Stazzema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18418_Ujibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18404_Kenichi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18403_Atsuhirotaisei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18381_Massenet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18379_Josévandam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18285_Vladplatonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18169_Amaldi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18167_Buttani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

18077_Dianeingrao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all and consider bringing a motion to WP:AN to have the creator topic-banned from creating astro-stubs. He's been asked (nicely) three times by two different editors but doesn't seem to have responded. If there were such a thing as space cruft, these "articles" would certainly qualify. It's like creating articles for every house on a suburban street. The entire effort would seem to be a violation of WP:NOTSPACEDIRECTORY. Stalwart111 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete everything on this list. Our notability guideline is clearly being ignored in these cases. I agree that the editor who is creating these seems non-responsive to reasonable requests. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Note 19230 Sugazi and everything after and including 7828 Noriyositosi have yet to be tagged as being up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I had to leave my computer in the middle of the job. I'll tag them now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like Stalwart111 beat me to most of them anyways :). StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ha ha, sorry! I saw the note and that you hadn't edited for a bit and so started tagging. I think we {{ec}}'d on a few but they look to all be done now. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. They are all notable because they are described in http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=90762 , which is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that WP:NASTCRIT quite specifically says that inclusion in a comprehensive database isn't enough for notability. I agree it confirms they exist, but what about being listed there makes them notable? Stalwart111 05:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Existence doesn't guarantee inclusion for this subject. Please see notability (astronomical objects), for the current guideline. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Delete all. Created in clear violation of WP:NASTRO subsequent to its establishment as a notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect all per WP:NASTHELP to the appropriate sub-lists of List of minor planets. I sampled several of them looking for suitable sources, but came up empty. It seems unlikely that they can be usefully expanded. Praemonitus (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

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