Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 October	25 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedily deleted as promotional (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange_County_Public_Library

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

The administration of OC Public Libraries (Orange County Public Library) has requested that this article be deleted as soon as possible. The article was originally created by a committee that no longer plans to maintain the page and there are no plans to continue updating the site by any other OCPL staff memebers. The same information in the Wikipedia article can be found on the library's website: www.ocpl.org, and, therefore, OCPL administration feels that the outdated information on the Wikipedia article is a disservice to the community. If you require an official confirmation of the request for deletion, please contact Renee Welling, OC Public Libraries Marketing and eGov Manager at renee.welling@occr.ocgov.com . Thank you. Amd70 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far the article looks a lot like spam and I'm surprised that it survived this long. For any curious, the sole source at the bottom of the article, the book about the OCPL, is a primary source according to this. I'll see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm not seeing much out there. A lot of the awards are for specific people or are awards that would be too minor as far as Wikipedia goes to really give notability, either partial or completely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orange_County,_California#Arts_and_culture. If we ignore the blatant promotion that seems to have been going on here, the end result is that we really don't have that much coverage for this library system. Most of what I found was either trivial or local coverage. Most of the best coverage was by the LA Times, which is local but also primarily trivial "this branch opened, this person is going to come here, etc" sort of coverage that falls under local interest sort of things. Nothing that is really in-depth. When it comes to book sources I found a lot of passing mentions such as this one and this one, but these are more in passing. I do want to note that I got some false positives, as it seems that there are several other states that have library systems by this name. Ultimately I can't find enough coverage to really warrant this library system having an article. I'm impressed by the system, but ultimately this just isn't a notable enough PL system to really warrant an article. If we do redirect and merge, given that there are at least 3-4 different library systems by this name, it might be a good idea to create state specific names such as Orange County Public Library (California) or Orange County Public Library (Florida). I might try to tag this as a speedy because of the lack of notability and the blatant spam that is on the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. It may ultimately make sense to redirect or merge, but we have a rough consensus is to keep for the time being. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Set It Right

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

Prod declined. No sourcing found, only unrelated material with "to set it right" and "the lieutenant" in it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found mentions here, here, and a review here. It's not a slam dunk on notability, but it's enough for me to err on the side of keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need improvement, but is not likely to get that if it is deleted. I plan to follow up on the links noted by NinjaRobotPirate and add to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Lieutenant. I was unable to find much more than brief mentions in Star Trek books. The DVD Talk review is a start, but I wouldn't say it's very substantial. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RS identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lieutenant. The coverage in independent sources just mentions this episode, and all that one can possibly say about the topic can fit into a small to medium article section. There's no reason to keep a separate article to hold this material. --Slashme (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as promotional (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maleeka R Ghai

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

BLP on an Indian actor. I found coverage in two RSes, but they both cover the same event: casting in an Indian television show. Seems a bit WP:TOOSOON for this WP:ONEEVENT to make the individual notable. Add the promotional-sounding username of the new editor who created, and it's starting to quack. My searching for sources didn't unearth anything else, but I'm willing to withdraw with apologies if I have missed something. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cerebellum (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven hills of Seattle

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

No significant coverage demonstrating notability or even veracity. The only coverage is brief mentions in local travel guides, which is not enough to verify that this is widely recognized concept, nor is the content here significant enough to warrant a standalone article (topic already sufficiently covered in Seattle#Geography). Ibadibam (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I find somewhat more sources for this, I think. Recent material is mostly travel guides, to be certain (although some of them pay this fairly substantive coverage). But it seems to have been a bigger deal in the first half of the 20th century, with quite a few periodical references, in everything from Christian Science Monitor to Weatherwise to the American Bar Association Journal. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting! Do you have links? Ibadibam (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator confuses verifiability with notability (if it's mentioned in local travel guides, then it's verified), does not explain why travel guide references are insufficient to establish notability for such a geographic feature, and says there's not enough content for a standalone article but has not proposed a merge target. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've added a section link to the main article above. As for verifiability, WP:V is pretty clear that a reliable source must back the content. If the sources for the article under discussion are not reliable, then the article is not verifiable. I contend that travel guides may not qualify as reliable sources for this subject. This is not a geographic feature; it's a romantic interpretation of the city's ambiguous topography, and as such requires reliable sources on the city's history and culture to demonstrate that this interpretation is commonly held. For all we know, the "Seven Hills" idea was coined by a travel writer to begin with, and has been perpetuated by subsequent guidebooks. Hopefully, sources will emerge from this discussion that prove me wrong. Ibadibam (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I contend that travel guides may not qualify as reliable sources for this subject." Why? Even if it was coined by a travel writer originally, so what? And if it was then "perpetuated" by other writers in guidebooks, then that's not only verification that it's a thing (regardless of whether the "seven hills" are objectively real), but also good evidence that the concept passes WP:GNG. What I find especially compelling (looking just within the current article content) is the fact that a Seattle park has been named after it, which means that it has "perpetuated" into a public institution by an official act of government.[1] postdlf (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I added a few refs to the article since creating it in 2005 as one of my first acts on Wikipedia. There's at least two Historylink articles and two-three Seattle Times articles using this term. Not quite rising to reliable sources, it's a well known local aphorism with (at least) a park[2], shoe store[3], apartment building[4], restaurant[5], bike ride[6], and foot walk[7] named "seven hills". — Brianhe (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great refs! Great also to see a page creator still taking an interest several years later. I think we've got sufficient refs now to rule out deletion, which just leaves the merge question. Can you speak to the motivation to have this as a standalone article? What does this article add that Seattle isn't already covering? And not that it matters, but no other entry on List of cities claimed to be built on seven hills has a standalone list. Is this a particularly important or notable case of "seven hills"? Ibadibam (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yah I don't prune my watchlist very much. I wouldn't mind seeing a List of hills in Seattle akin to List of hills in San Francisco where we could hang the other various hills and cover the "seven hills" phenomenon as a subtopic. From a uniqueness/historical significance perspective I think Seattle's hills are interesting in that one of them only exists in memory, having been washed away in an early 20th century civil engineering project. But don't know if that alone justifies a standalone article. — Brianhe (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some others do: Iași, Istanbul/Constantinople, Moscow, Rome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources included are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RS identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of Surface Transport (India)

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

There do not exist ministry of surface transport now. It is ministry of Road Transport and Highways (India) and a page for the same exist in Wiki Eliaskurian (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason for deletion, as articles about entities that no longer exist still belong in an encyclopedia. A redirect would also be inappropriate, as the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways is one of the two ministries that replaced it; the other is the Ministry of Shipping (reference: International Association of Ports and Harbors). Peter James (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirect to Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (India) to maintain the page's history and links. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (India) Keep per Paine, also Government related service shows importance. ///EuroCarGT 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All that's needed is a sourced sentence to say that the ministry was split to two and no longer exists. We don't delete because something ceases to exist or else we wouldn't have any articles on history! —SpacemanSpiff 13:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as neither part of the nominator's rationaile for deletion is in any way based in policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Ya,it was a mistake. New to editing wikipedia. Offense will not be repeated. Eliaskurian (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can improve the article and make it relevant till the split. This will include the history and functions. The current articles on MoS and MoRTH can include stuff post the split. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Eliaskurian (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (India) per Paine, this will show how that ministry has evolved over time. belongs there. --Nlfestival (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have now sourced the page to show the bifurcation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Legge

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

Does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. Additionally, the article's main contributor is Preachtheword-uk (talk · contribs), whose only edits are to this page, which seems to indicate a conflict of interest. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Searching reveals no coverage of this individual in reliable sources. Subject appears to be non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a classic case of WP:COI evidently leading to WP:POV problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, please delete this page. I have no idea who originally set it up. I am the webmaster of David Legge's website and know him personally. I had to create a Wikipedia account specifically to correct inaccuracies in the original article - which had largely been lifted from our website (which explains the WP:POV problems), but added to (with inaccuracies) by the author of this article. David has no wish to be included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Preachtheword-uk (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, especially the wishes of the subject. St Anselm (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI and POV aren't reasons to delete, but lack of notability is.--Pointism (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I vote this way with regret, but I do not see much that is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tinpahar (tinpahar.com)

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

CSD tag removed by IP editor. AGF that this is not the creating editor logged out, so AfD s the place to bring it. This is a non notable corporation and an advert. Fiddle Faddle 16:26, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources = no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Twinkle said it had happened and I trust Twinkle. Fiddle Faddle

Delete No WP:RS evidence of attained notability for this website launched just weeks ago. Fails WP:NWEB; at best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No coverage in reliable sources. Non-notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this website just started a month back, noted has some credible people mentioned as contributing content for this website, we have to wait for this website to really become what they think it will be and then it will deserve a page, wiki is not a advertisement forum, you have to arrive first not use wiki to arrive, my two cents.--Nlfestival (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete- The website was been function for more than a year now. NOT "a month" old. It seems that the website has credible people as contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayo Swaaq (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Mayo Swaaq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. --Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 18:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description error

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

WP:OR. Needs to be rewritten at the very least, it not deleted outright --Mdann52talk to me! 12:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Interaction design (or whatever the best article is) Book source here, also a brief passing mention of what appears to be the term in Don Norman's seminal "The Design of Everyday Things" p.60, so it has reference in reliable sources, but not enough for a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DICTIONARY. ~KvnG 18:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. As explained above, there is some coverage in sources that takes it away from being a simple definition. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first is no more than a definition. The second uses Description but not Description error. I did originally look for sources and found a definition or two but did not find any significant coverage. ~KvnG 14:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Interaction Design - I agree with this, and also that the article is more of a definition and therefore maybe should have its own article in Wiktionary. So I would be willing to incorporate it into that article if that is the resolution here. Actually, after a little more investigation, it might be more appropriate to incorporate it into the human error article. Spalding (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expand to have enough encyclopaedic content to stand alone - A little more investigation shows that similar items like poka-yoke have encyclopaedic articles, so I would be willing to start off on an improvement to bring it up to the standard required. This would help WP:Build the web. Spalding (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to allow Spalding a week or so to improve the article.

In case the article is not improved, the closing admin may delete the article or redirect it appropriately. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Certainly notable as a concept - for example aircraft controls are often designed with this in mind, eg in handles having a different shape, requiring to be moved in a different way from each other, etc. Not a sub-category of Interaction design, which seems to be used only for virtual objects, though the reverse might possibly be the case. I am not qualified to suggest what other term it might be covered under already in WP, or what sources are appropriate, but safety-critical things such as this have a specialist literature. Psychologists may be familiar with this in another guise. --AJHingston (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources is crucial for making a keep/delete decision. If no sources turn up before the AfD closes, the article can be deleted without prejudice and created again once sources are found. ~KvnG 21:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phenomenon is well known, important, will have been studied and this is a reasonable search term. It may well already be covered in Wikipedia under another heading, and if not ought to be. The term should redirect there, or even vice versa. Our failure to identify that or appropriate sources is a measure of our ignorance. --AJHingston (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance or is it inclination to talk about research in preference doing research. ~KvnG 14:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original complaint was about original research, which I assure you it is not, so I will add references. The concept comes mostly from the work of Donald Norman as far as I can tell, so I will integrate a good paper by him, a noted scholar in the field. As of now I have made a first pass, but I am not very proficient in adding references, so I added that paper as an external link. In my opinion, the article is now sufficient to have the proposed deletion withdrawn. Spalding (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are required to establish notability. If someone can come up with one more reference, we'll be set. ~KvnG 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here does not seem to be with the subject matter but whether description error is the right name. It may well be that it is more commonly written about under some other term and if so that is something that can be dealt with under normal editing in due course, but nobody so far has come up with one. It seems to me that the evidence that the phenomenon has been understood for many years and of the measures taken to address it (eg shape/texture/colour/etc coding of controls) are ample evidence of notability. Note that other references point to application outside the field of aircraft, eg mining, so it is not specific to them. Similarly, other ways of addressing the problem can be followed beside coding of controls. It is the concept that should be addressed in this article. --AJHingston (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we now have multiple sources. I have called out the selection error synonym in the lead (a redirect was already in place) and added these two articles to the EL section. ~KvnG 20:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Delete per WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT is not yet policy. This is not a dicdef, it's an encyclopedia topic. It's a niche subject, but usability design is a real discipline and description error is one real and sourceable topic within this, along with capture error and mode error. Much as for Type II chip, this is nit-picking nonsense until such time as you actually need to design a cutting machine or to investigate a pilot error aircrash. Specific and narrow topics are no reason to delete from WP, and some readers from some backgrounds do appreciate having them around. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic looks notable. Two books are mentioned, but not formally referenced, in the article as discussing description error. Description error is understood to be a potentially serious problem in medicine, and is described in the papers [8] and [9]. The concept is also used in cognitive psychology [10]. The Human Error book and the three papers mentioned are all secondary sources; the two medical papers are peer reviewed from good journals. The topic seems to pass notability threshold per WP:GNG. The article could use some reference and citations to those references. The article could also use some links to other cognitive error concepts, like mode error. The prose is otherwise well written, so there are no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by new sources in EL section. ~KvnG 20:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus default to keep. We need to do more research before bringing articles like this to AFD. Glovex104 has provided two very good sources. One of which shows that he is/was the CEO of Israel's largest advertising firm McCann Erickson-Kesher-Barel, and there are definitely more such as this one from the Haaretz that show the same. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Shiloah

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

This is an article about a living person. It has two references, but none of them mentions that person. So, the article is contrary to the wp:blp policy that every article on living person has to have at least one reliable source. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two reliable sources that include the person in the article were added. The other two refer to companies mentioned in the article. MyValues (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links formats were changed to full citations. Plus, the page is no longer an orphan page. MyValues (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After adding references, fixing the links format and linking other pages so it wouldn't be an orphan page - are there any critical issues left? Thanks. glovex104 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything that satisfies the sourcing and notability requirements of WP:BIO. While a successful businessman, there's just not independent coverage of his work, and his position as chairman of a regional subsidiary of a multinational company doesn't convey a presumption of notability. The Bloomberg investors page is not significant coverage, and the rest of the sources are generally about the businesses he is associated with and not the man himself; notability is not inherited. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Saying he his just 'chairman of a regional subsidiary of a multinational company' seems culturally biased. Plus, how is he any different from many other articles in his category that weren't deleted (Israeli_businesspeople)? Some examples are - Uzi-Eli Hezi, Gad Zeevi, Eli Elezra (is being a poker player notable while being a businessman isn't just because you're successful in the US and not in another country?), G. Yafit? Yaron Golan? Where is the uniform standard if this article is deleted but many others are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyValues (talk • contribs) 23:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Per Squeamish Ossifrage, coverage on the individual only appears in context of his businesses. Doesn't appear to have enough standalone notability to support passing the GNG for an article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two secondary sources in Hebrew which include (each) an extensive interview with the article's object. Glovex104 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article may need a lot of work (OK, it does need a lot of work), but I think Shiloah meets WP:GNG. Between McCann, Matomy and TheTime, there's a lot he's done in the business world. He's also notable for his involvement in the "Harpaz Affair" in Israel. --FeldBum (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:BIO. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Hansen

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

H/T to User:Dan skeptic for pointing this one out. Having read the sources available, it seems that this particular parapsychologist is not particularly notable (appears to fail WP:BIO). jps (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only self published sources. The only other source I found is [11] but Fortean Times isn't the most reliable source when we have a clearly WP:FRINGE topic. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Only coverage is on conspiracy theory and paranormal blogspots promoting his stuff and some YouTube videos. Absolutely no reliable references. Dan skeptic (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews listed here. I have not verified all of these but see no reason they would be wrong, three example verifications in Journal of Religion & Psychical Research;Oct2003, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p236, Fortean Times (Issue No. 175, 2003, pp. 40-410) and Journal of Parapsychology;Jun2002, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p197. The status of Parapsychology as an unambiguously WP:FRINGE topic seems to be controversial on reading the Parapsychology article so it would be controversial for us to unambiguously assert fringe status in this AfD. We have many Category:Parapsychologists articles. At least two of the sources work regardless of FRINGE classification, Skeptical Inquirer and Fortean Times. And the book itself takes a critical view towards its own field, discussion here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree. There's hardly any reviews and look at where the few are, they are in pseudoscience and fringe parapsychology journals that are not even accessible online. Journal of paraspsychology is not a reliable reference, and it was written by Michael Grosso a well known paranormal believer. There are no reliable references for Hansen's book and it has not been reviewed in the Skeptical Inquirer. You also say "the book itself takes a critical view towards its own field" (no evidence for this) and you link to an anti-skeptic website owned by Rupert Sheldrake and other woo-believers which claims stuff like psychokinesis and reincarnation has been proven. Sorry but not reliable references. Dan skeptic (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absence of reliable sources. WP:BIO not established, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No notability has been established except in articles about him being the grandson of JFK, and page view stats/"what links here" are not policy backed arguments for keeping an article. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and cannot predict that his political career will actually be notable, or that his stated intentions of doing so will actually come to fruition. Therefore, at this time there is still not enough direct notability established to warrant an individual article on Schlossberg. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 13:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Schlossberg

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

Schlossberg has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, only Kennedy-related celebrity talk, notability is not inherited. Hekerui (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy, who has announced intention to pursue a career in politics, is a public and notable individual. Information in the article is often sought ought, page view stats shows some days have nearly 2500 views. A significant number of What links here. Deleting would do more harm than good. WP:Inherited is an essay that provides plenty of nuance to deal with individual cases without being blinded by a rule. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy" - no notability reason, "announced intention to pursue a career in politics" - no actual office held, "public and notable individual" - assertion, "often sought ought" - like Malia Obama, "What links here" - links come from a template about the Kennedy family; in all, the coverage given is not about Schlossberg but how he fits in with his family. We have the article Kennedy family for that. Hekerui (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NY Post, DailyMail, IrishCentral - lengthy profiles, coverage does exist about Schlossberg. "Significant" coverage, when you take into account the facts being reported. The contention that the "only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy who intends to pursue a career in politics" is non-notable is difficult to fathom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not in the titles of these articles, but JFK is - this is why he's covered at all. Aside from family, what notable things has Schlossberg done since 2011? I don't see it. Hekerui (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that Schlossberg is the only surviving male descendant of John F Kennedy, and has announced his intention to pursue a career in politics, does not indicate notability. I could look into my crystal ball and say it means he will be notable, but that doesn't count. However, articles in major newspapers are another matter. Those articles might exist only because he's the descendant of JFK, but the reason doesn't matter; the papers apparently felt he was notable.--Larry (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noability is not inherited, and despite what some of the Kennedys think, America is not a monarchy, and we do not have people who inherit political positions. Until Schlossberg does something notable we should not have an article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

INHERIT is meant to prevent us Wikipedians from arguing a person is notable because they are related to someone famous. It's an essay in the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's about arguments to avoid eg. "I, Green Cardamom, believe this person is notable because he is a Kennedy". INHERIT is not meant to trump WP:GNG or to second guess or judge the press. Do you see the difference? INHERIT does not apply to the NY Post. The NY Post is not arguing in this AfD. The purpose of WP:GNG is to show evidence of coverage regardless of what that coverage is about, we don't bias against sources because, for example, we think someone shouldn't be treated like a monarch. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In agreement with Johnpacklambert. Joe R (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 17:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is a college student who has been in the public eye only to a limited extent. As a Kennedy descendant, he may well wind up getting a lot more publicity in his lifetime and thus achieve a greater claim to notability later. But so far, he hasn't really done that yet. If this person truly becomes notable, we will likely be able to find a lot more reliable sources covering him than there are now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of My-HiME anime characters. KTC (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoto Minagi

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

This character does not establish notability independent of My-HiME through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My-HiME anime characters - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect tot List of My-HiME anime characters per Knowledgekid87, as the character in questions has no notability outside of the series and is not the subject of enough out-of-universe reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. The user !voting keep did not provide sources to substantiate a claim of independent notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department H

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. BOZ (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of government agencies in Marvel Comics. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. Department H is a recurring organization with the pages of Alpha Flight and it had some media appearances. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:09, November 11 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. The user !voting keep did not provide sources to justify a stand-alone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big House (comics)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. It is one of the major prisons in Marvel Comics and it had some media appearances. Besides, where are we supposed to put the info on each prison's inmates. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:29, October 24 2013 (UTC)
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe or List of correctional facilities in comics. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe as a minimal point, possibly creating a "Prisons" section under "Other locations". Possibly also adding it to List of correctional facilities in comics - and that "list" needs a serious clean-up. The plot/in-story info dump making up this article really has little to justify a separate article. And I see zero reason to create an incarceration roster. It's plot-dumping minutia that is better served on Marvel Database. - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unless more secondary sources can be found. Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of the Haunted Mill

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

It is not clear what the article is about. I guess it's about a move, but it lacks wp:notability. Google search returns only 4 results ([12]). Vanjagenije (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nobody has actually argued for keeping, and the merge argument has problems, as indicated below. It seems therefore that there is a consensus (albeit not a very striking consensus) for deletion. however, any doubt whatever has been removed by the discovery that the article is a straight copyright infringement of "Kochbiharer Itihas", by Shri. Hemanta Kumar Rai Barma.

Koch Rajbongshi Royal Family

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

First, this article doesn't include any inline references. Second article has very little text related to the royal family. Whole article seems like original research or copied from somewhere. If there is anything notable about this topic, then it needs to be re-written from scratch. The lead section appears to be copied from http://www.coochbehar.gov.in/Htmfiles/royal_history.html#royal_dynasty Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 11:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands, it clearly fails WP:V. Google Books search suggest the topic may be notable, but unless it is properly referenced, I am leaning towards delete as OR/V violation. There may also be copyvio concerns, as Vigyani notes w/ regards to copying from sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What is described in this article that is not described in Cooch Behar and Koch Rajbongshi people? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or TNT: Despite its name, the article describes the Koch Rajbongshi people, which is already described in the rather poor, but at least minimally sourced article of that name. A few quick searches on Google Books bring up many reliable-seeming sources that show the subject's notability and could easily substantiate the core parts of the article. However, please the note the large variety of spellings: every possible combination of Raj(b/v)(a/o)n(g/ø)s(h/ø)i, with or without 'Koch'. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments:
  - "Royal family" is apparently a literal translation of "Rajbongshi"
    - For the actual family, see Koch dynasty.
  - See also the duplicate (stub, but more coherent) article Rajbanshi.
  - See also Rangpuri language. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here is a rather good source, for example: [13] הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks Hasirpad for digging up sources. I had also noted the overlap with similar related articles and asked for help at WP India noticeboard. This is particular doing of a user Surjits (also Surjits12, same user), who has copied large chunks of text from various sources and pasted in many related WP articles. I had cleaned up a bit before nominating this at AfD. I think all these articles i.e. Rajbanshi, Koch dynasty and Koch Rajbongshi people describes the same content and should be merged into one, maybe Koch dynasty. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, except that your suggestion of merging to Koch dynasty is a bit of a problem—the majority of the content of the articles refers to a people/ethnicity, not their historic rulers. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - hmm, you are right. But in that case an article about people under whatever title will also need lot of cleanup due to similar reason of copyvio's . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 02:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Clearly fails WP:V. my search this subject may be have some references as a part of other subjects, I am leaning towards delete. --Nlfestival (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Chico

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

Completing nomination for User:178.82.53.35, whose rationale was "Unsourced, probably a hoax." It's certainly not a hoax, but I'm not sure about WP:GNG. I found this (in Czech), but it's a passing mention at best. Hoping someone else can come up with something. Ansh6 6 6 07:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upcoming car with no independent coverage - seems like WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Volkswagen Up! as it is part of its family, but judging by timeliness, it may not have been successful. aycliffe^talk 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) KEEP in light of below. aycliffe^talk 21:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This won't work, see below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - A merge would be a problem as this isn't the first time Volkswagen has produced a car named "Chico": they proposed one in 1992! [14] [15], [16], [17] - it's a lot easier to find info on the 1991/1992 concept car than on the ~2008-2012 Up!-based proposal, in fact, and there also appears to have been an African-market car named "Chico": [18], [19], [20], etc.. Between the three of them though, there is enough here for an article, seperated between the two "generations" as per the standard format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus - It's nothing but an article failing WP:CRYSTALBALL & WP:TOOSOON, It's barely been expanded since 2011 plus only thing I've found on Google are reviews & images are VW Golfs. Seems for whatever reason the car wasn't launched at all? ... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOEFFORT, and see the links above... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per sources provided by User:The Bushranger. Several sources may not have enough depth of coverage to meet wp:sigcov, but this source does, and others are paywalled. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 16:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make it Rain (Courtney Argue song)

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

Not notable song by a notable artist. Fails WP:NSONGS, was released a year and a half ago, and still notability has not been established and the song has not charted. STATic message me! 07:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find significant coverage for this song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If not for Pitbull's involvement I would have suggested this for CSD (A9). In any case, I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this song; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gong show 18:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Patrick (fighter)

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

WP:TOOSOON Only one appearence in a top tier event. Does not meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's true he doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I agree it's WP:TOOSOON, but I think userfying this article would be preferable to deleting it--if somebody wants to step up and take temporary possession of it. Given that he's undefeated and won his first UFC fight, I would be surprised if he doesn't meet NMMA in the future (yes, I know that's WP:CRYSTALBALL). Papaursa (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. No problem with recreating the article when he meets WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, but with that last win he could soon be a force, it would be a good idea to userfy. LiberatorLX (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Quaccia

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

The article itself states that this individual does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON, "He never played a season in the National Football League (NFL)." Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this article because I was looking at the draft picks for Tampa Bay and there was a red link to his name, which I thought indicated an article should be created. Please advise. I can certainly delete the article if needed Thanks--BuzyBody (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

comment not ready to make a call just yet, but a player can fail WP:NGRIDIRON but pass WP:GNG. It's possible that he passes the second. I need more time to review the news articles. However, normally college offensive linemen don't generate enough press to pass WP:GNG without some other noteworthy item such as a national award. Hence my hesitation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his name is in print a lot, and that's deceptive sometimes. But it's usually just in a team roster list of statistics or "...oh and the starting center is..." type statements. I did find a good deal of local coverage about local sports interest, but not at the level that I think we need here. There's nothing that I can find to have him stand out as notable as a center or by any other measure. I say the subject failsWP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipmediawiki

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

I'm not sure this entry is encyclopedic. This seems like an unlikely and unreferenced search term. It mirrors mw:Wikipmediawiki, but this is internal jargon, isn't it? MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notwithstanding the presence of the mediawiki page with this oddball title, this is entirely inside baseball. There's no external relevance to this title, and the page as it stands doesn't seem compliant with WP:DABNOT anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary disambiguation page with list of 3 Wikimedia projects, non importance page. ///EuroCarGT 00:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or convert to be {{soft redirect}} to mw:Wikipmediawiki. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a probable search term. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to User:Expowiki/huggle.css. --BDD (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utilisateur:Expowiki/huggle.css

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

The user namespace isn't named Utilisateur in English Wikipedia. Should be moved to User:Expowiki/huggle.css. GZWDer (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move. This seems like it should be uncontroversial housekeeping. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clackamas Town Center shooting

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:EVENT is not satisfied. No long-term coverage or any lasting effect. Sad, but not notable. "When President Barack Obama delivered a speech regarding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, he mentioned other shooting rampages that occurred in the U.S. within previous months, including the incident at the Clackamas Town Center" ...are you kidding me? Beerest355 Talk 00:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I live down the road from Portland. While there have been shooting incidents in Oregon that pass muster in terms of lasting, historical impact (the Kip Kinkel school shooting comes to mind), this one, I feel, does not. WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get out of the way to ease the closing administrator's decision. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was previously nominated for deletion in December 2012 under a slightly different title (I've added the AFD above). There was a laundry list of non-policy (almost non-content) keep !votes and an almost-supervote close based on the number of hits the article was getting at the time (actually an argument in favour of a WP:NOTNEWS view). I share the nominator's view - are you kidding me? This failed NOTNEWS then and it fails that same standard now. With the benefit of 9 months hindsight we can see WP:EFFECT was really never in play. Without being too dispassionate about it, hopefully that 9 months will also allow editors to contribute to this discussion with policy-based arguments rather than emotive nonsense. Stalwart111 05:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bodycount not high enough? Sickening. This is a notable event in the history of mass shootings in the United States. Particularly for what didn't happen (there were only three dead) and for the method in which it was stopped - an armed citizen. Also, The President of the United States has cited this incident in a broader narrative with respect to gun control in the United States and people conducting presidential research or research into this period might want to get more detail on what a president was talking about. The article documents what happened. A cursory search on Google currently reveals 96,000 articles that reference the event. There is also the question of balance on the wiki - if every mass shooting that is stopped by an armed defender is deemed not notable then we are left with only the scenarios where a mass shooter actually carries out his acts in an unhindered fashion - presenting a skewed view of reality. Aurora is notable but this is not? Why? because the folks at NBC decide to keep talking about Aurora but not Clackamas because it doesn't fit their narrative? Because the Aurora shooter got to the magic bodycount level? We should keep these and we should elevate the heros to their proper place rather than the perpetrators of these horrific acts. This deletion request appears to be politically driven. The mass media might determine which events they want to keep in the spotlight but they should not determine the documentation of history. Politically motivated editors should not delete articles with impunity either. Historically, mass shootings occur and they are fairly rare events but when those events occur, they are notable in history of the US. If we delete this work from the Wiki, then 20 years from now when someone is researching what happened, they won't be able to find anything on the Wiki? effectively erased from history? Seems wrong. But you guys do what you want - you're going to anyway. -Justanonymous (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, in the modern U.S., this does not rise to the level of notability. The assertion that "an armed citizen stopped it" blatantly contradicts the actual information in the article, and seems to be a red herring introduced by distorted accounts in pro-gun publications, rather than anything from reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: easily meets WP:GNG. Just because the media is finished hyping coverage of this event is not a reason to erase the record. —EncMstr (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in my opinion it meets WP:GNG, also notability is not temporary. Once deemed notable doesnt get non-notable just because the event doesnt get as uch press by time.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG. If we used the GNG for everything, we'd have an articles on all kinds of stupid things that were in the news once. Also, yes, it does get non-notable if there is not as much press. An event must have persisting coverage and some sort of a lasting effect. This was sad, but a routine crime. Beerest355 Talk 18:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The president of the US doesn't just reference all kinds of stupid things, to use your vernacular. For better or worst this was part of a broader discourse in 2013 about gun control. It was highly cited by politicians and is part of presidential and congressional record. It's a notable event and meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. It's in the same group as the Sikh temple shooting, aurora, and Newtown. It's notable because it happened at a time when the national discourse was laser focused on things like this. It's also a decent article.-Justanonymous (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this shows continued coverage and a long-term effect, but who knows, as apparently I'm the only one who looked for sources per WP:BEFORE, which despite me continuing telling people it is required for notability deletions, the nominators just keep ignoring it. Plus, there was the other lady who had some sort of extreme PTSD and died months later, which I do not see covered in the article. Of course, even EVENT says this would be notable: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." It does not have to have all of the elements, they are simply a list of items that may cause an event to be notable. Much like in BIO, you do not have to meet POLITICIAN and ARTIST, just one or the other. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aboutmovies, and he said it better than I can. Never mind that President Obama mentioned the incident in a speech to ban weapons, per Justanonymous. Based on WP:OUTCOMES, we have deleted some and kept some. I think this event lies on the 'keep' side. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-profile event with massive news coverage → notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

An interesting AfD with compelling comments. This one will be followed and watched quite well, I suspect. Please add new comments below this notice, do please be civil and AGF. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 15:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Album: The Happiest Celebration on Earth – Walt Disney World Resort Album

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

Non-notable album with no reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Parks – One World: Walt Disney World Official Album for one of the successor albums. De728631 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These albums come and go and just don't receive any coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 20:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Album: Where Magic Lives – Walt Disney World Resort

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

Non-notable album with no references at all. A prod was declined in 2010 without addressing the original concern. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Parks – One World: Walt Disney World Official Album for the successor album. De728631 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These albums come and go at the Disney theme parks but few, if any, meet notability requirements. The whole lot at List of Disney theme park albums can probably be deleted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 14:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 20:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cerebellum (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex

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

Google News search returns "Your search - "A Woman's Deeper Journey Into Sex" - did not match any news results." For a movie, this is the kiss of non-notability death. No returns on a general google search except IMDB and the producer's website. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wp:toosoon, specifically future-films section. Documentary/docufiction not yet released, with no known distribution/release date.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if the film gains notability after release. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repemployment

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

Non-notable employment and outsourcing firm. DB-ORG removed by IP editor. Assuming good faith, I will presume that the IP is not the original author, and thus taking to AFD instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. I see that you had to bring this here. What a shame the IP removed the CSD rather than improved the article, assuming it to be capable of improvement, to show some sort of notability for the organisation. Looks like a ten a penny recruiter to me. Fiddle Faddle 13:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising events that have happened.. in the future.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising events that have happened.. in the future. MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. postdlf (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland (TV Series)

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

no references, and it says the original run date is 2017-2020. Really? Lady Lotus (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sounds pretty WP:MADEUP to me. Chris857 (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A TV series that doesn't exist, won't exist for 4 more years according to the article's own text, but is certain to last for 7 seasons? No, none of this is factual, and is about as blatant as the "blatant hoax" clause of CSD G3 is likely to get. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable/hoax. Not the easiest thing to Google, but it's very implausible, and searching for Brave spin-offs all I get is "The Legend of Mor'du"[21]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. Peter James (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khandan Kadir

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

I don't think that this meets WP:BIO. I see a lot of sources that are about the Guantanamo detainees in general, but very little about Kadir specifically. Also, WP:CRIME suggests that we should not usually have an article in situations like these. Also, commenters should be aware that I removed some unreferenced material per WP:BLP before nominating this article for deletion. You may wish to look at the article before I edited it to compare it with its current state. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, as done with many others like this previously. The problem is the lack of sourcing about Kadir specifically, as noted by Mr. Stradivarius. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough media coverage for notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Green Cardamom. There is insufficient substantial or not-in-passing media coverage for notability; name-drops do not count. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zane Carney

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

PROD contested by article creator. This individual is not notable as a musician (per WP:NBAND) or an actor (per WP:NACTOR), and does not meet the WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Hartshorn

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

Unreferenced, and I can't find anything substantial about him online. Fails WP:BIO. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete appears notable, but article sounds very wp:copyvio, would need a re-write to become Keep--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. No sources. No obituary. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babaji ka thullu

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

Contested PROD removed with no removal rationale. Reason was "Pure WP:OR". Fiddle Faddle 11:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete looks like a joke page. Concept is known but it is not notable enough for a wikipedia page.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no suitable speedy deletion category, or, trust me, I would have volunteered it for it. Fiddle Faddle 13:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM which states, "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." If such secondary sources are written or found, we can reconsider. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient Mail Submission and Delivery

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

Internet protocol that just didn't make it, with an article only echoing the IESG note in its RFC that describes why it isn't suitable for the Internet. A GScholar search turns up a slew of documents, almost all written by M. Banan (the RFC's author) with practically only self-citations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried searching Google scholar for papers that referred to this RFC and were not written by Banan [22] but did not turn up the substantial coverage in multiple sources needed to pass WP:GNG. Google books also failed to find any good sources. We don't, and shouldn't, cover all RFCs (let alone with separate articles) and I just don't see the case for notability for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:GB fan per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Capodanno

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

Sni56996 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be removed. We copied/pasted from a famous person to get the info box, but forgot to remove one line fro it. Very sorry. The mistake was noticed right away and corrected. Jeff Parrish John Capodanno —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about putting some actual content in it first and not just a box? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G3. m.o.p 12:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (2014 TV Series)

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

Obvious hoax. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demetri Goritsas

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, much less WP:NACTOR Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article appears to be about an ordinary working actor who plays small roles but is otherwise undistinguished. Indeed, the article is virtually nothing more than his filmography list repeated in prose. As it stands, this is a promotional resume, and judging by the one single-purpose account most responsible for it, possibly a self-promotional resume. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Just wanted to respond and say I'm a bit disheartened the article is being cited for deletion and being questioned for notability. As a first time contributor (though I was hoping not my last as I have a few things I'd like to contribute to in the future but I feel a bit dismayed by this happening and the reaction it is has gotten) I read a lot and researched a lot on the article and on how to make sure I was writing in a way that was neutral and not resume like though I seem to have not succeeded on this point. I'm not the person in question not do I represent him but as a first time contributor it can been seen as suspicious to more experienced contributors and editors. I'd appreciate any feedback or pointers on how best to go about fleshing out so called "stub" articles (as this one was / is) as I thought it would be nice to work on something that didn't have a lot of editors or edits so far. Obviously my tone is a bit off as it's raised flags, would it be better if it was shorter? As for the notability, I think it's quite subjective to say he isn't notable enough to have a page dedicated to him as it was set up by someone else (not me) who obviously had heard of him and thought he was also notable, plus a lot of the films and television shows he has worked on, in some significant if not starring roles, have their own individual pages on Wikipedia. There is a lot of secondary sources online as well (not all independent, I see using personal IMDB sites is a no-no which I didn't realize but appreciate the edit on this) that I linked to so nothing I have said is untrue. He is also known not just for films, TV and theatre but within the gaming sector also for voice work which is quite significant and notable, though maybe gamers don't use wikipedia! I think it's slightly ironic that the largest film he's been in, X-Men: First Class, is his most notable role, for the size of the audience, yet he is being edited out of the cast list on that particular page, which I think is harsh considering you are saying he isn't notable enough yet he is in a very notable film. I'm quite confused so any guidance so I can avoid the article being deleted would be great. It wasn't my intention to make it promotional or resume-like. I'm here to learn and contribute and to be a part of a community not to "link spam" as has been said. Thanks for reading (----)— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNLRJG (talk • contribs)
- FYI To the editor above: You sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), not dashes (----). Second, your last sentence was "Thanks for reading." Most people won't. Most will say "WP:TLDR". Can you repeat the salient points from above in a concise manner? From what I see, your argument boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Please read the two links in the nomination before replying. Like many new editors, it appears you have misunderstood notabiliy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the Editor above for the explanation of WP:GNG as explained on another page. I appreciate the time taken and advice given. Though the level of notability I would say comes down to the many secondary, reliable, independent sources on the work of the actor being enough for a stub article (which was already there when I came along from a previous editor). I see I probably did too much too soon. With WP:NACTOR I would also argue he does make the requirement, with significant (named and speaking roles) in notable films, also referenced. I hope this does enough to keep the article from being deleted. Several changes have been made to the article in the past week by others to neutralise the tone, I'd like to keep "neutralising" it in future as well. Thanks. KNLRJG (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, "others" haven't done anything. One editor, I, removed some of the more egregious vios and tagged the article. Two bots have made technical (coding, punctuation) edits since. If we're going to debate the merits of this article, let's do it with honesty, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I'm just not seeing evidence of WP:GNG here. Present sources are either not up to WP:RS standards or mention the subject only in passing. Hey, I'm a Greek American too, so far be it from me to want to suppress the manifold contributions of Greeks to American culture and society, but that's no excuse to stretch the rules for this guy. I hope he gets a big break and we can revisit the question of notability, for what that's worth. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vellaippan Velayudam Thanga Thirupathy

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

The inventions claimed in the article seem improbable to me and the subject of the article does not appear to be notable. There are a number of references, but only two go to what could be reliable sources. First a US patent that strikes me as bizarre. Second is a scan of what appears to be a magazine article in Nadar Peedam which describes itself as a Tamil monthly, but does not have any recent publications on its web page. I don't speak Tamil, so I can't tell much about the publication, but a search for the publication's name in English comes up with few hits. SchreiberBike talk 05:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for magazine and newspaper articles about the topic and found nothing, including in 102 Indian newspapers. Also nothing substantial in a general Google search most sources originate from this Wikipedia article. Also searched using the Tamil name and very few sources, though a few looked promising Google Translate doesn't include Tamil. Nothing in Google Books that is noteworthy. Filing patents does not make a person notable. According to WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO need sources that are about Thanga Thirupathy. No obituaries published when he died in 2011? No remembrance of his life and career published in newspapers? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Soce, the elemental wizard. Content can be merged from the history, if necessary. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemonade Incident

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

Album fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to soce, the elemental wizard. I found only one source, a trivial mention. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula One season cars

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

The article is vague and lacks references. The content of the article is dealt with in much more detail in the season article. There is no precedent for the creation of this page - although the changes to the regulations are extensive, it is not the first time this has happened, and in the past these changes have been addressed on the most-relevant season article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The page has several references and had them when it was nominated. The statement of the nomination is therefore quite inaccurate. The nomination also seems to be suggesting that the topic is notable and would just prefer it to be covered under a different heading. That would be better addressed by merger not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 10:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not what I am suggesting at all. While the subject is noteable, it is only noteable enough for inclusion on the relevant season article. The sport underwent significant changes in 2006 and 2009 that were similar in nature to these changes, but they do not have their own dedicated articles. In the wider context of these things, the content of the article only relates to the 2014 season (the regulations will form the basis for the 2015 rules) and the cars that compete. There is nothing in the article that is not already covered on the 2014 season page, and no additional detail that can be added. It appears to serve no other function than to prevent Red Bull RB10 and Renault Energy F1-2014 from being orphans. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're trying to delete the articles about the cars too. This all seems quite absurd as the cars and their engines are discussed in considerable detail in periodicals such as Racecar Engineering. What you seem to be trying to do here is cram everything into one page. We don't do this for other sports such as football and there seems to be no policy-based reason to do it for this one. And AFD is not the place to try to enforce your editorial whims. Warden (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I am trying to do. The regulation changes are adequately covered on the season article, which is consistent with the way the articles have been structured for years. This page and the two that go with it are only being kept alive due to a combination of ILIKEIT and to prevent each if them from becoming orphans. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The article is verifiable and referenced. This is a significant and notable set of rule changes, evidenced by the wide and reliable cover. That is sufficient to justify this article that I created. The precedents are the thousands of other articles in Wikipedia similarly covering notable subjects. Freimütig (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What coverage? These articles contain virtually no content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section on fuel in this article is not included in the season article. So at least merge, not redirect or delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since there is no coverage for the predecessors of the cars, and such cars are already represented in the Formula One season pages, so there is no point keeping it. StandNThrow (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article has too many details that would interest too few people. I see that its predecessor from the year before has already been deleted. The general topic of Formula One merits its page, which could point to an external source of details. Their vast number exceeds the scope of any reasonable encyclopedic treatment. Ornithikos (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Yugantar English Boarding School, Ramgopalpur-6, District- Mahottari

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

whilst I acknowledge Nepalese sources are hard to find, I could only find WP mirrors mentioning this school. other than that there is its own webpage which doesn't say much. if it was a high school if would have inherent notability but I can't verify that. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. No hits on Google News, and not a high school. buff bills 7701 01:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to include at least some high school grades, based on the references to "junior and senior" at http://janakiyugantarschool.hpage.co.in/hostel_56505476.html and photos of students. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a school that exists and with high school grades, although their website is very basic and poorly written. What we have to realise is that sources and resources in developing countries or regions are not so well provided as in other areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly written, but does appear to provide secondary level education and is thus notable under long-standing consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is it really a high school? I can't verify that. the small reference to junior and senior is not clear to me. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Deadwood (TV series). --BDD (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette McNamara

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

BLP with no independent source. part of a ring of few BLPs that appear non-notable or at least borderline. Widefox; talk 12:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: the "ring of BLP's" it looks like the article creator is a Deadwood fan making articles on everything related to the series. Some are notable others not. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deadwood_(TV_series) with the hope someone will create a sub-section about the writers and start a list of writers with 1-paragraph summaries in something like List of writers for Deadwood TV series. This content belongs on Wikipedia somewhere but it's not notable enough to pass WP:GNG for a standalone article, that I can tell. There are some minor award nominations from the WGA but there is nothing written about her to build an article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Although the Deadwood article doesn't particularly mention her name, it is still relevant. Searching "Bernadette McNamara writer" with Google News provided this (seems to be her with a married name now) and this (mentions "TV writer"). A search with "Deadwood" provided a foreign link. Google Books also provided mentions with her as a writer. As usual, some writers and directors don't get much attention but this one is probably more obvious because she only produced/wrote a few episodes. Finally, searches for Medium and NYPD Blue provided nothing, which is not surprising. No prejudice towards a future article if she obtains more attention or starts writing again. SwisterTwister talk 18:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Green Cardamom - Would help alot if someone created a Writers sub section.

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Radio

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. has been previously deleted. could find no indepth coverage. there's a radio station of the same name in Las Vegas. also 1 small hit in BBC. [23]. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 14:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Student organisations are rarely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable radio station. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everything above.LM2000 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war. SarahStierch (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticity and Development Front

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

This Syrian opposition group does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in third party sources as required by WP:ORG. I was not able to find reliable, secondary sources any better than what is already in the article. VQuakr (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional Arabic sources include: [24][25][26][27][28] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a couple of those, and two have English language translations available I think. In your opinion, are any of them reliable and independent of the topic while covering the topic in sufficient depth to connote notability? VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ..or Redirect per Bushranger below. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. RichardStevens89 (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war - there's enough to WP:V this as one of those, and it's a plausible search term. Redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's relevant, BBC source says it numbers 13,000. 5 sources used so far, article needs more time to develop. DylanLacey (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIGNUMBER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by The Bushranger. I've looked through the Arabic-language sources, and they're fairly thin as well. No question this group merits an entry in list of armed groups in the Syrian civil war, but I don't think there's quite enough for a full article yet. —Neil 06:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. already G11'd. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auliq Ice

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

Promotional article, notability not apparent. I tried speedy deletion but an IP user (hmmmm) removed the tag, and again after someone replaced it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wifione ^Message 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Laffan

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

This article does not meet the wikipedia notability guidlines as players of Gaelic games are presumed notable if they have played at senior inter-county level in the League or Championship Rubaisport (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS in relation to footballing exploits, does not appear to have achieved relevant notability requirements in Gaelic Games either. Fenix down (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not played Inter County Senior hurling or Professional Soccer, therefore fails all relevant notability guidelines. Finnegas (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Havruta (organization)

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

This page doesn't meet the notability guidelines of WP:ORG Proud Novice (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is significant coverage in the Jerusalem Post. There is also English coverage in Ha'aretz and various American Jewish newspapers. There is a strong presumption of coverage in reliable Hebrew language sources. Has nominator checked? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the moment a lot of the article is unsourced and it reads too much like a promotional piece. These are fixable problems and not reason enough for deletion. Notability seems to be secure. Zero^talk 07:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Press section includes multiple articles from sources on three continents about the organization and its activities. These sources establish notability for the organization and need to be better integrated into the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of coverage from secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per the above. I would advise the nom, a new editor, to take the time to follow some more AFD discussions before making any more nominations, to learn more as to what constitutes a proper nomination for AfD. It would save both his time and that of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it seems that the nominator evidently appears to be guided by WP:IDONTLIKEIT since based on the nominator's own limited history of user contributions something about the way this "seemingly limited" user uses WP terminology makes it seem that he/she is not such a "novice" and perhaps WP:CHECKUSER may be needed to clear up any WP:COI and WP:NOTSOAPBOX violations. One does not have to agree with everything, but WP is a universal encyclopedia that allows for all subjects to be presented in a WP:NPOV and WP:RS manner that this brief article does qualify for. IZAK (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been speedy deleted numerous times. User has been working on this since Oct 4th on their user page (not sandbox). Since this article does not meet wp:notability and high likelyhood user will continue to delete CSD tags as before, taking this to AfD ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 21:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps-the above AfD is not related to this article, it just has the name name--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nomination was originally tacked onto original nomination from 2005. I moved it to its own page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a non-notable 14 year old drummer. There is no coverage of him whatsoever in reliable sources. Ignore Google hits from the 1990s as he wasn't yet born. The first AfD was for a different non-notable Luke Taylor who was an actor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously does not meet WP:GNG but you have to give the user ten points for effort and entertaining prose Depthdiver (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - It is a far cry from meeting WP:GNG, let alone WP:MUSICBIO - GHits reveal completely unrelated individuals and GNews results return similar, but far fewer results. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 09:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Maceda

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

Previously declined at BLP Prod. Only source is WP:PRIMARY. Only findings were name-drops. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ILIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can be very difficult to reference a biography of a notable but not famous journalist. First, you have to discount all the hits that are bylines to the journalists's own work. Those aren't independent. And then you have to discount sources discussing the journalist published by his/her employers. But if other reputable journalists discuss his/her work some time later, in a non-promotional context, shouldn't that count for something? And shouldn't the raw multitude of mentions count for something? I like book sources in cases like this. Clearly, we discount a book written by the subject, him/herself, but how about discussion in a book written by another employee of the same media organization? I will discount that a bit, but not entirely. Here's the bottom line: He's a working journalist with a long career, specializing as a war correspondent and foreign affairs reporter. He's not "famous", whatever that means, but he's very well known among those interested in the careers of contemporary war correspondents. Accordingly, I believe that he passes notability standards, based on mentions in a very large number of reliable sources, rather than independent, in-depth profiles in two or three reliable independent sources, which I did not find. I concede that other editors with different standards may disagree with my judgment here, and encourage other interpretations. I see this as a genuine borderline case. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Blah blah blah, keep because I want it kept is all I got out of your filibuster. Try again, preferably with something actually based in policy, and not just pulling stuff out of your ass. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How kind, TenPoundHammer. Thanks for your collaborative, understanding attitude, and willingness to engage thoughtfully when disagreeing with another editor. I am sure that legions of uninvolved editors as well as the closing administrator will be won over by your thoughtful and persuasive response, and that this horrible article will be deleted forthwith. Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, knock it off. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: I will when you tell me what part of Cullen's filibuster was based in policy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll stop making personal attacks on another editor regardless of whether their AfD argument has any relation to policy whatsoever. WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars, and flaunting it will have consequences. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By sourcing a New York Times article on awards, something that was not hard to do in a Google News search by refining the parameters, I have done sufficient in my mind to save the article. WP:HEY applies. I have, naturally, entered the awards mentioned into the article, with the citation. Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Timtrent Thank you, i was going to use that but i have been told before that awards shouldn't be listed. ACase0000 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the bio added, which shows he has been a recipient of several notable awards. Delete I don't think there's really enough here for a standalone article. I found no substantial sources and the one added by Fiddle Faddle devotes not even a sentence to him and just says he won an unremarkable award. While I get what Cullen is trying to say, I'm not really sure having a long career and being mentioned a lot is enough to override. the GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found one source about his date of birth and I think this man deserves his own article he was worked hard for 40-years in field that is not the easiest in the world [Journalism] and is a few years away from retiring, I think that it should stay. ACase0000 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the 'keep' word because this editor has made a statement headed by 'keep' already. The closing admin will note the further comment anyway. Fiddle Faddle 15:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite my being in favour of retaining the article because of the sourcing I found, I disagree with your argument that he deserves an article because he has worked hard all his life and is near retirement age. I and many relatives have done the same. Not ine of us is notable except to those who love us. Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a point to be made about his 40 years of service that deserves attention. NBC is an important network and to be employed by it and with that much time in service usually points to some achievement and some recognition.Crtew (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: He satisfies several notability points for a journalist as #1, he is an award winning journalist and #2 he is used as an expert by other journalist. His career spans 40 years. He is definitely Heymann material. I have added an external link to his page that is an official NBC bio, and this can be used to make finer searches within Google and elsewhere. Crtew (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely needs improving and the nominator was correct that in its present state it is problematic. Crtew (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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