Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 19 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_July_19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 July >

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 keep. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Woolley

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

Bruce Woolley may be most known as an early member of The Buggles, but appearently that is the only significant independent coverage about him that I've seen. This is mostly an unsourced article that has absolutely no magazines or newspapers covering in-depth about Woolley other than his invovlment with The Buggles. Not even the fact that Woolley has been only credited as a writer of some hits could save this article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite obviously notable, and a bit of searching would find plenty of coverage, e.g. The Daily Book of Photography, Seventy-Nine, Eighty, High Fidelity, Close to the Edge - the Story of Yes, The Art of Music Publishing, Trouser Press, Not Simply Divine, The Morton Report, The Madison Courier: "Bruce Woolley: Picture of a Pop Star" (also Times-Union), Boston Globe, The Montreal Gazette: "Fine Production Puts Woolley Ahead of the New Wave Pack", LA Times, Classic Rock, Cherry Red Records, The Guardian, The Leader-Post, efe eme, The Phoenix, Billboard, Daily Telegraph. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig, based on significant coverage in easily found and reliable sources, which prove general notability. Bearian'sBooties 14:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The claims of notability were alredy in the article. Although the referening is poor, sources to improve the referencing are readily available as shown above. He is the co-writer of multiple hit songs satisfying WP:CREATIVE. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Ross

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

Does not meet either criterion set forth in WP:CRIME. MSJapan (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually the nominator is quite wrong the article does meet criterion per "historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Per sustained coverage from time to time troughout the last 10 years and a weeks time of daily coverage by media in Sweden focusing on him as an individual. I have to ask has the nominator read trough the article and all of its sources?. Anyway I will not return to this AfD as I have more important things to handle right now than bickering about this so if it is kept then great as it should be kept if guidelines are followed or if not then so be it.. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wish you would self-identify as the article creator when you keep vote on your own articles. MSJapan (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If Texas was to abolish the death penalty and Ross was the last person to be executed in the state, this article may be notable, or could at least be merged with an article on Texas law regarding the death penalty. This man committed a murder 12 years ago that received local and state-wide coverage only. I can only find Texas-based media that reported on his death also. This man is not notable. Delete.74.78.72.209 (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Swedish media Texas based these days?. strange. You need to read through the sources again.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review Wikipedia again.74.78.72.209 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable, and 74.78.72.209 "You need to Sweden, Texas|review Wikipedia again]" is an odd comment. Aftonbladet is published in Sweden, Sweden not Sweden, Texas. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit short but meets WP:GNG. The ip comment is just plain bizarre. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That it happens to have coverage in sweden because he was part of a news special in Sweden about the US treatment of murderers is absurd. That's the sort of quirk that does not amount to notability . Keeping this is totally incompatible with our usual practice. If a Swedish newspaper were to cover all US executions because, presumably, they regard the US practice inhumane, would the people executed all be notable? DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But now Swedish media has NOT covered ALL american executions. They have covered Vaughn Ross execution in numerous articles. You actually make the argument even better for Keep as you are right, had Swedish media covered numerous executions each execution had not been notable in itself but as media covered Vaughn Ross execution exclusivly it makes it notable. Users Paul McDermott and In ictcu is completely right this article meets WP:GNG and is obviously notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a bit light, but the coverage of the execution also included non-Texas sources, prominently Huffington Post [[1]] and the New York Daily News [[2]]. I see the Swedish coverage as relevant as it, compounded with the denial of guilt until the end, should ensure some continuing attention to this case in the broader debate about the death penalty. To clarify: In this case Sweden refers to the country, not the Texan city, and the source is a major Swedish newspaper. Overall, this article passes GNG in my book.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:34, 26 July 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) 01:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gennaro Nunes (football manager)

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

I am unable to find any reliable source references to this coach. All references I turn up seem to be either user created content or copies of the Wikipedia article. Appears to fail WP:NFOOTY. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not managed or played for a club in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and has received no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. T 88 R (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Iota Fraternity

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

Is not notable, RS is just some blogs or college links. Tyros1972 Talk 22:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG alike. For what it's worth, the article has a balance problem and is poorly written too - it is not even clear what university(ies) this is about. But, no coverage anyway.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; the few refs are passing mentions. Miniapolis 13:38, 26 July 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) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Griddle Toast

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

The article is lacking references that would affirm its encyclopedic value. The facetious writing style suggests this may have been done for fun. In my view, it falls completely short of WP:GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just so much is wrong with this one... Ansh666 22:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And then redirect afterwards per Tokyogirl below, I guess. Ansh666 05:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to toast. There isn't enough out there to show that this specifically needs its own entry. Wikipedia isn't a repository for a detailing of every dish ever made. It does exist, so a redirect would be a reasonable idea. That said, this is so obviously written to be a joke article that I'm going to try tagging it as blatant vandalism. I don't know if it'd be speedied, but the outcome of this looks to be fairly clear: redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per TG79. I agree that it's intended to be humorous, (and who is M.M. Alder anyway?), but possibly not quite vandalism. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or cookbook. No indication that this is notable. I don't see any point to a redirect, subject is not mentioned at the target. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete That griddle toast exists does not establish notability. To my surprise, I found one cookbook reference: The Commonsense Kitchen: 500 Recipes + Lessons for a Hand-Crafted Life Tom Hudgens (2011), Page 88, Chronicle Books, ISBN 9781452100333, here. It still isn't notable. The only other references are behind newspaper paywalls and one Dallas, Texas (USA) restaurant menu cited by the article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:58, 22 July 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) 01:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Úlfur Karlsson

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

No apparent claim to notability. Technopat (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does have notability claims, just not good ones. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. The New York International Independent Film and Video Festival, which supposedly accepted his film, has a dodgy reputation for accepting anything if you pay $300. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No significant recognition of his work that I can find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some coverage, but not enough for me to say it clears the notability bar at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. That was some brain fart. Self-admonishment as it's onyl one !vote per customer. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per arguments above. Appears to be a run of the mill film director. Finnegas (talk) 20:59, 24 July 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) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrooms

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

Promotional article for startup that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. I have checked all the sources. They are mostly bloggy and none is in-depth coverage. See also WP:TOOSOON Logical Cowboy (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article just does not state why the subject is notable. It seems like it may be a promotion. Delete? —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 3rd party coverage to date does not demonstrate attained notability in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:NWEB. Also note the presence of WP:COI editing. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with AllyD, no notability proven. Moreover, references are likely paid advertising disguised as articles or only a passing reference. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:21, 26 July 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) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status of the AK-47

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

Numerous gun law articles, including fully automatic/assault weapon law pages. No reason to have a page specifically for the ak47, and the laws discussed only cover a subset of the laws in existence, and also only a subset of the ak47 variants in existence. Merge anything valuable into the appropriate articles, and delete this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Content fork of the various gun control law articles. Ansh666 22:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...The "Legal status of the AK-47" page is clearly "an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion". While this is not expressly forbidden by Wiki, it should be discouraged. Anyone who has edited Wiki for any length of time can attest to finding factually inaccurate information, propaganda, vandalism, even outright lies throughout the Wikipedia Encyclopedia. Even, if an editor is qualified to discuss the subject. It is too easy for correct information to be altered or removed by someone who is NOT qualified to discuss the subject....Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer reads.....

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE LEGAL OPINIONS

Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however, no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time—sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia.

The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed professional, i.e., by a competent authority with specialised knowledge who can apply it to the particular circumstances of your case. Please contact a local bar association, law society or similar association of jurists in your legal jurisdiction to obtain a referral to a competent legal professional if you do not have other means of contacting an attorney-at-law, lawyer, civil law notary, barrister or solicitor.

Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, nor sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.

Nothing on Wikipedia.org or of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a legal opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of law.--RAF910 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why a separate article is needed. Select-fire (i.e. "full auto") firearms are prohibited (for civilians) in most parts of the world. There may be one or two cases where the AK is explicitly named in legislation, but most of the article is simply particularizing from the general prohibitions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not distinctive contents-wise, regardless of the weapon's large production volumes. I agree with the above comments.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:50, 26 July 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) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EG Innovations

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

Article about a corporation that is merely a rehash of what they do. There is no assertion to notability whatsoever beyond routine news articles, press releases, non-reliable and primary sources. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per nom. Jd027 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The substantial reference is the UK Trade & Investment case study on assisting this firm to establish a UK office. However on balance I think that article is more about UKTI's assistance process than the firm in-itself, so doesn't demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability for the article subject. AllyD (talk) 06:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Govtwonk33 (talk · contribs), who originally added the article, is a Morning277 sock-puppet. So is 54.241.200.213, who deleted from the infobox the statement that the company's annual revenue is $3 million. The edits by ABTS-TN-Static-023.7.165.122.airtelbroadband.in also look to me as though they may be part of a PR effort. The writing style is an invitation to buzzword bingo. —rybec 00:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references provided are all PR or self-published/ not-RS. The ZD net reference discloses at the bottom of the article, which is essentially a press release, that eG Innovations is client of the author, so non-neutral coverage there. Dialectric (talk) 08:00, 25 July 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 hoax by Peridon (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft 2

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

Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. From the creators, "Hopefully releasing within the next two months, this 2-years-in-development game will be bringing blocky simulation games to the next level." The prod was contested. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minecraft 2 was an April fools' joke [3] [4], not an actual sequel to the game. I do not believe it meets any kind of notability standard. Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft per above; wouldn't mind a very small section about the joke, but not necessary. Ansh666 21:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the redirect doesn't make sense as while it was an April Fool's joke, it's not a reasonable search term. There's simply no Minecraft 2 even planned. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone's out of the loop or perhaps wants info on the joke itself, they might search it. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ansh666 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Minecraft with a bit of rewrite. I play (but not rabidly) and I still hadn't heard of this joke. Fylbecatulous talk 03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 hoax. Even if Mojang released that April Fool's statement, this stub doesn't reference it or even have similar information (and no other info is available)—classify as hoax. If someone wants to make a cheap redirect afterwards, I don't think it's necessary, but it could potentially deter future copycats. czar · · 19:14, 21 July 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) 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xpress Engine

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

I saw that a PROD has recently been edit-warred over by IP editors, so I had a look at the article, and I have found no evidence at all of notability. The article contains no references, and the external links are all to the product's own web site. Google searches have also failed to produce any evidence of notability. The first Google hits were the company's own web site, the Wikipedia article, a download site, another page on the company's own web site, Facebook, Twitter, a comparison page that merely listed a few features, a forum, five more pages on the company's own web site, and then a spam page, advertising a product unrelated to Xpress Engine, but quoting text from the Wikipedia article Xpress Engine, evidently in an attempt to pull in custom from people searching for it ... and so it goes on through the other hits. Nothing anywhere even remotely suggests notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent reliable sources to support a claim of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Found stuff about trains, but not this CMS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 22 July 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) 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Appleby

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

Non notable sports administrator with insufficient secondary source coverage, recently created. Orderinchaos 12:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Trove, Newsbank and Google News archives, which only show her being quoted but not about herself. Orderinchaos 12:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be addinng information from the following three references in near future. Significant Australian sport administrator and part of the Australian paralympic Wikipedia History Project. Lois Appleby - personality profile.Rafferty, L., ANZALS Newsletter 1995: Vol. 5 Issue 1. p. 15 Interview with Lois Appleby: CEO of the 2000 Paralympic Games.Sen, T., Sweat May-Aug 1999: Issue 4. p. 18-19 The paralympics' very able organiser. By: Cromie, Ali. BRW. 18/08/1997, Vol. 19 Issue 31, p56. 4p. 5 (talk)

Delete: I would like to vote keep but a review of WorldCat, NewsBank, Trove, Google News, Google Books does nothing to support a vote under WP:GNG and it is unclear under which other criteria the article could be kept like WP:NSPORTS. Plus, the tone of the article is highly promotional. If it is kept, this needs to be removed. --LauraHale (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mainstream coverage about the subject. Read like promo too, but really the lack of coverage is the issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 11 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 19 July 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) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Irby

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

Only notable for a recent newspaper article about what he wore in a yearbook photo. Don't think he is notable enough beyond this Gbawden (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable claim of importance, does not merit an article in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:07, 11 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly violates WP:N. Jd027 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- glad to watch the video, but it's not encyclopedic. WP adds no information to what's covered elsewhere and what's covered elsewhere isn't enough for WP:N. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 20 July 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) 01:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel (2006 video game)

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

A non-notable cancelled video game. Tagged as failing notability guidelines since late 2009, and all in-depth coverage found from "Fuel (video game)"-type searches points to the newer 2009 game by Codemasters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete maybe better Merge? I'm finding just a few articles that does confirm the game was planned including an appearance at an E3 event. Of course, that doesn't mean a whole lot but it does show we had a game here at one point. I don't think deletion is necessarily the best option but outside of merging to the publisher Dreamcatchers (which seems odd), I'm not sure what other course of action is there. It is not like there's a lot of detail on what the game would have been beyond a hybrid racing game. And while I initially thought this was tied to Codemaster's 2009 Fuel, it does appear 100% completely different (as that would have made a good merge point). --MASEM (t) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not querying the fact the game was planned. The thing is, it never received much coverage, it was planned by a fairly minor company, and it never got very far into the production. I wouldn't have a problem with a merger into the publisher's article, but I'm not sure how much would really fit there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm not sure of. I would not merge a game into a publisher if they were only just publishing the game (we usually don't catalog what a publisher offers otherwise), there's no pre-existing IP, the dev studio is not notable. As we don't have to document every planned-but-cancelled game, deletion seems okay, but if we can figure out a good merge target, all the better. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 12 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; I can't find a merge target either. Redirect is useless because of disambig in title; I feel like merging to the publisher would be WP:UNDUE, however small; and there really is no better target. Ansh666 21:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No signficant coverage for a game that never made it to release. I did find a mention in this paywaleld article but cannot access it. Given that it is about music being used in video games, I doubt the coverage is signficant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable for lack of coverage, as in the reasons stated by Ansh and Whpq. --Bejnar (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Angkor Wat

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

searched and haven't been able to establish notability; e.g. no coverage from several notable, independent sources. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC per Michig. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My previous edit summary says that this is way notable. I didn't mean that, my laptop automatically filled that in as I typed. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:15, 11 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news reveals 2 pages of results, and per the above links. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 01:29, 20 July 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) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian churches in the United States

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

Challenged PROD. Challenger claims article is an "integral part of the Armenian diaspora". However, the articles fails WP:NOTDIR, especially criteria 3 and 4, as a mere listing of all of the Armenian churches in the U.S. I do not see its integrity. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An equivalent list is List of Presbyterian churches in the United States, but this is restricted to notable churches. There don't seem to be any notable buildings or congregations on the Armenian list. St Anselm (talk) 02:21, 12 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm, the notability of the entries of a list are not relevant to the notability of the list as a set, see WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." 109.78.205.222 (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Presidentman that this falls foul of WP:NOTDIR, particularly point 7: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". This article is an excessive cross-categorization, including US churches of the Armenian branches of three flavours of Christianity. It might be preferable to deletion to split the list into three, i.e., List of Armenian Apostolic Churches in the United States etc. One of these lists already exists: List of AEUNA churches. 109.78.205.222 (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and falls foul of WP:NOTDIR; none of the entries seems notable (at least, none has an article), nor do reliable independent sources discuss the list as a list. The same is true of List of AEUNA churches, which could also be nominated for deletion (in contrast to Armenian Evangelical Union of North America, which is notable). Comparable lists like List of Anglican churches, List of Baptist churches, List of Presbyterian churches in the United States, List of Methodist churches in the United States, List of Quaker meeting houses, etc. are restricted to churches that are notable in some way; that is not the case here. -- 203.171.196.7 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've PRODed List of AEUNA churches. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage as a group in independent secondary sources. The only citation is to the Armeniapedia. --Bejnar (talk) 16:46, 24 July 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. Merging can be determined through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (issue tracking system)

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

Does not demonstrate notability as sources are non WP:RSes and because of the name, I can't find any with a Google search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal, perhaps merge into Countersoft? One combined article on product and company more likely to survive. W Nowicki (talk) 23:52, 6 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:16, 12 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 19 July 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) 16:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. John Walsh

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

Delete, I still believe this article fails WP:GNG. The coverage available is trivial coverage, I believe he fails WP:AUTHOR specifically. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Walsh seems only to come up for evening passing reference as a witness is two trials, but he is not notable enough that people actually bother to check their facts on him. This used to be a much longer article, that gave us his educational background, but it lacked any sources. His writtings in the International Journal of Mormon Studies have lead to responses on the blog By Common Consent, but I really do not see him rising to the level of being notable. The fact that this article has only expanded by editing by the subject, without him even pointing us to sources that show his claimed notability is telling. This lin [13] does give some background on Walsh, but I really don't see him being cited in reliable sources. Yes, we can bring up multiple sources on his testimony about the conditions at the YFZ ranch, but I don't think even if we could get enough good sources on his testimony in Canada (which my initial take is that we cannot), we can get inflamatory blog calls and one horribly written Washpo article that mentions him in passing without even understanding who he is, but not more than that. He does not come anywhere close to meeting the general requirements for academics or authors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everything I could find concurred with JPL's analysis. Stalwart111 23:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per inability to find notable information on the subject, but I do believe that the nomination is in bad form -- the nominator, who has three times nominated the article for deletion, removed most of the information from the article that could have been used to support notability. By deleting information and nominating three times, it carries the air of a vendetta against the subject rather than a dispassionate attempt to remove articles not meeting the notability guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and lack of reliable sources. I am amazed that this has survived two other AFDs. Gamaliel (talk) 18:15, 22 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're History

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

This book fails WP:BK. There are no independent sources cited and I can't find any reliable reviews. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only significant coverage that I can find is a one paragraph review from The Guardian. SL93 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Only coattails on the notability of other people. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:41, 26 July 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) 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Libertiny

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

Not notable according to WP:N Leobeaubien (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Seems to be an attempt at self-promotion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 15 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful coverage, self-promotion tone aside.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Dudley-Eshbach

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

Delete - I don't think that the article is notable enough and not enough reliable references are present. Also the article is being promoted by user accounts such as User:Jdudleyeshbach2 and User:JanetDEshbach which hints at self-promotion. Milesandkilometrestogo (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is the president of a university so she meets WP:ACADEMIC, I also found enough reliable sources that mention her with a Google search to meet WP:GNG. The fact that it is being edited in a promotional way, possibly by the subject herself, is not a reason to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets WP:PROF. Possibly being an autobio is no reason for deletion, nor the fact that the article is not very good: AfD is not for cleanup. Instead of wasting our time with a meritless AfD, it would be more productive to spend that time in improving the article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 13 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easy keep on WP:PROF#C6 grounds (president). Remove promotion in article, don't delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above although more sources would be good and a mention of the Facebook apology would make it appear less promotional. Harry the Dog WOOF 12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! Here's a link the the article itself. But I think that just the fact that a news outlet would cover the fact that she had racy (racist?) photos on her facebook account attests to her notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:27, 21 July 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. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Kazemi

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

This is a WP:1E of an immigration dossier. The person is not notable and there is no claim of notability in the article. Farhikht (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I wouldnt at all object to moving the article to a different non biographical name it seems the case has been notable, and is ref'd. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the article be moved to Asylum case of Mehdi Kazemi? I don't see a move button.. Seems the case has received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There are 100,000s of asylum claims. 1000s of them are accepted. Because homosexuality is persecuted in certain countries, that is a ground for asylum, and there are probably 100s of which cases. What makes this case unique enough to be notable. Apart from his sexuality, I see nothing notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin could move it. If you want that to happen, Candleabracadabra, I suggest you vote to keep. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:50, 10 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High profile case (see here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-life-or-death-decision-792058.html). Worth keeping. Kabirat (talk) 12:04, 14 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 19 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Davis (cyclist)

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

Appears to fail WP:NCYCLING. This appears to be a fairly new athlete that has not yet reached the level of notability for a Wiki article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 17:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom sats 07:43, 22 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncover...

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

By the article's own admission, it is a promo. A promo with a limited release in the UK, no less. Notability is not substantiated in the article, and its only source appears to be a fansite and is a dead link anyhow. I ran a Google search for the following: (uncover him "i love you" "it's all tears") and received 265 results. Most of them were torrent download sites, the rest were fansites or YouTube pages or what have you. No actual coverage of the subject. It belongs in a place like Discogs, not here. LazyBastard Guy 22:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 7 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 19 July 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. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete York Blues Project

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

The band exists, and thought I could do something with this, but there's not enough information available. Merely a list of CVs of its members. I have hidden the content as a) it reads like a translation, and b) it could be copyvio. Technopat (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 4 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This brings to mind WP:GARAGEBAND. Probably more prominent than the fictional example given but it still applies in my book. Lazy Bastard Guy 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think WP:GARAGEBAND is not really applicable here. This group consists of individually notable musicians. In fact, every member of the group has a Wikipedia page, and arguably they meet WP:BAND point 6. Are they a supergroup of blues musicians? Possibly, but given the lack of sources writing about them, I hesitate to say point 6 is met. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content is very likely a copyvio. See this. The article as it stands is completely unsuitable to the point that it would need to be blown up and started over again. I'm not sure this collaboration of musicians is notable, although the individual members are individually notable. Looking at the deleted contents, and the line-up for this project, it looks the same as the Jon Lord Blues Project which is in horrible shape but which at a cursory glance does appear to be notable. Did this band morph names? The deleted contents would seem to hint they are the same. If so a redirect would be appropriate but given the copyvio concerns, that can be done after deleting the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. Thanks for feedback. I think, without having gone into it too much, that the Jon Lord project is actually a spin-off of this one, but it's evident that the possible copyvio issues are key here (if not at the other page????). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I don't know which came first as teh rambling text doesn't make it very clear. It also doesn't help that there is no reliable source discussing teh band's history on which we can ascertain if the Jon Lord Project is a spin-off. There is no copyvio apparent at the other page. It may not be well-written, but it doesn't appear to have copied material. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After more poking around, I found this site which seems to be the source of copy for this article. I read it again more carefully, and it seems that the Jon Lord Blues Project is the original name of the band, and it has undergone name changers after Lord's pancreatic cancer sidelined him from playing, and ultimately he succumbed to the cancer. So I'll reiterate that this must be deleted as a copyvio. The band is best known the Jon Lord Blues Project, so a redirect after the deletion makes sense. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. No objection :) Regs., --Technopat (talk) 20:37, 22 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Easterday

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

This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E, only known for his illness. Delete Secret ^account 18:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manifestly notable for life's work and per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't really see what the issue here is as far as questioning notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:42, 7 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there's no "event" here, this is not a "textbook WP:BLP1E." The policy is not WP:BLP1THINGOFANYKIND, and we do not delete articles just because the subject is notable only because of a physical/medical condition. Plus, as the focus of BLP1E is to avoid separate articles on people incidentally caught up in larger news events who otherwise remain "low-profile", it's nonsensical to try and stretch it to cover someone who played a semi-fictional version of themselves in a feature film, appeared multiple times on The Jerry Springer Show, and was the subject of a TLC special. Clearly not someone who is trying to remain low-profile. So per satisfying WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources (and sustained over time, so not a NOTNEWS issue), keep. postdlf (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candle and postdlf. Is it starting to WP:SNOW yet? A medical condition is not an event, and the guy's gotten a lot of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The focus of a movie and a television special, that should be sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the lack of independent reliable sourcing mandates deletion here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanaza

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

Non-notable start-up. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I scrolled the first 3 pages of Google results and listed some of the links that I found. I will need some help to understand which ones are totally insignificant, as most of them seems to be written by independent bloggers / industry experts, newspapaers, startup-related publications. What can make all of them irrelevant?

Patro-claus (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 13 references you listed do not show that the company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. See in that respect Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Blogs such as references 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are largely not acceptable (see WP:USERG). References 5, 7 appear to have been directly or indirectly published by the company (see WP:CORPDEPTH), i.e. they do not appear to be independent sources. The TechCrunch reference (reference 11) is acceptable as such but only contains a passing mention of the company amongst quite a few other companies. Thus, so far, we haven't enough coverage to keep the article. --Edcolins (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I limited a Google search to articles written in Italian and still couldn't find any good references. If Italian press doesn't cover an Italian company, then I think it is unlikely that other reliable secondary sources will be found.--Nowa (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:42, 26 July 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 Gazetteer. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer

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

The only results when searching for this publication on the internet are those of the publication itself. Due to this it appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for books. There is no hope of communication with the user who created this article, as the user (Claire Wynn was a suspected sock puppet of Gladys Tuffnell. Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Jackc143 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gazetteer? I see many such publications included there with article links and external links. Seems worth noting in the encyclopedia. The author (Thomas Bladwin) has published some other work, but I can't find much on him. Alternatively merging into an article on him would be an option if some bits can be put together. He seems to have been from Philadelphia and to have worked with another fellow (http://montgomery.pa-roots.com/Biographies/DavidThomas.html David Thomas) who published some other Gazetteer type pubs and seems to be of some note. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believers (¡Mayday! album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL. Article about an unreleased album, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Little more than a track listing at this point. It may become notable once it's released, but at this time I can't find any reviews or other coverage in reliable sources, except this passing reference, which contradicts the information in the article. Pburka (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is gonna be released in less then 2 weeks and is sure to chart on the Bilboard 200. Koala15 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. The best coverage I can find is this write-up at HipHopDX. As suggested above, it's possible this album will become notable after its release five days from now, as of this edit. Gong show 05:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Already released by a notable group on a notable record label; once this discussion closes, I will be adding some more reviews and other sources to this (I think this AfD might have scared some editors away). Tom Danson (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has now been released and has charted in the top 100 of the Billboard 200. STATic message me! 20:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Three weeks ago, when this was nominated, the topic was non-notable. It has now achieved notability. Pburka (talk) 23:04, 24 July 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 Redirected by User:Dolfrog as per below. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory integration dysfunction

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

This article has now been merged into Sensory processing disorder inline with merger discussion. dolfrog (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If content has been merged, the edit history of the source article must be preserved. The closing act for a merge is to redirect, not delete. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK been away too long. dolfrog (talk) 17:34, 19 July 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) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard School of Learning Islamabad

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

Non-notable IT / language training school. Not a degree granting institution, specious use of "Harvard". Online presence is a webs.com site. Hairhorn (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable educational institute having no sources to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:ORGPRIMARY. --SMS ^Talk 15:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick Google search reveals no reliable sources, and the school was only established this year. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 19:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. The only thing that might prevent an A7 speedy deletion is that the article's claim that this is "the leading school in the federal capital of Pakistan", an unreferenced assertion by the WP:SPA article author User:Sm asim; let us note that the organisation contact on the webs.com site is ... Syed Asim. Promotional page.AllyD (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is not a mainstream K12 school or degree awarding institution and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) - Mr X 17:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Park, New Jersey

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

Article about a non-notable city park. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC) - Withdrawn based on the long history of the park and secondary sources that have been found. - Mr X 17:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When I saw the article as it stood when nominated I was ready to vote to delete. After a little bit of researching, I was able to find several sources describing the creation and improvements of the park, along with specific claims of notability supported by reliable and verifiable sources. As expaned, I believe that any notability issues have been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gümüşhane Airport

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

Delete, airport is not in existence yet. Can be rewritten when it's built. Suggest moving to userspace at most Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Jd027 (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not consider this article a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The crystal policy is meant to prevent users from uploading unverified speculation and personal opinions. All of the information listed comes from a government report by the Turkish Ministry of Transportation, which is a very reliable and expert source for this particular subject. Furthermore, the policy actually states that articles about future events are allowed to exist if they can be verified. This article meets this requirement. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I don't think there is a rule which prohibits articles about structures which are not finished yet. The airports are notable and the author presents sources about the airport project. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added as much as specific references/citations to this article from reputable sources such as Ministry of Transport, local newspapers. This project is ongoing and appearing in relevant government working paperwork as a future regional airport.Haksal (talk) 07:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and urge those claiming WP:CRYSTAL violation to actually read that policy. It only prohibits unverifiable speculation, not verifiable content about planned events or works. Major infrastructure projects spend many years in planning and construction, and typically get more coverage in those stages than after they are completed. Such coverage can be found cited in the article and from the news search that I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and agree with Phil. If for any reason construction doesn't go ahead the article can be updated to reflect that. But there are definite plans that are moving ahead. WP:CRYSTAL would cover, for example, an article saying an airport will be built based solely on a politician running for office saying "Let's build an airport". Harry the Dog WOOF 07:53, 21 July 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) 01:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cell recursion theory

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

This article is an attempt to publicise a brand new theory, announced to the world in a book published July 2013, which has not yet achieved notability. Whether it ever will do so remains to be seen: if and when it does we can have a Wikipedia article about it.

As originally written, the article was sourced only to the book in which the theory is published ("The Origin of Metazoa: An Algorithmic View of Life", by Rafaele Di Giacomo, Jeffrey H. Schwartz & Bruno Maresca). It is perhaps worth mentioning that the article was created by a single purpose account, every single one of whose edits publicises work by Rafaele Di Giacomo. The article was given a PROD saying, amongst other things, "Article is only sourced to a single paper from earlier this month", and, after the author of the article removed the PROD, the article was tagged with {{one source}}. After that, the author added a whole string more "references", evidently in an attempt to avoid the impression of there being only one source. However, all of those additional sources were published years before the invention of Cell recursion theory. In fact, these additional references are not actually used in the article as citations for any statement about Cell recursion theory: they are used as citations for other matters that the article tries to link to Cell recursion theory: for example, the article says Brenner also stated that: “Biology urgently needs a theoretical basis to unify it and it is only theory that will allow us to convert data to knowledge”, and gives a reference for that, but it does not say that Brenner actually said anything about Cell recursion theory; nor could it, as the cited source was published three years before the publication of Cell recursion theory.

I have just done a Google search for -wikipedia "Cell recursion theory", and got no hits at all. A search for "Cell recursion theory" produced all of seven hits. One was the Wikipedia article, and the other six were pages at www.alternativefuse.com, none of which actually mention "Cell recursion theory". (It seems that Alternativefuse is one of those sites that fakes Google hits for things it picks up from Wikipedia in order to attract custom. To make sure, I used Alternativefuse's own site search facility, and confirmed that Alternativefuse has no page at all mentioning Cell recursion theory.)

The long and the short of all that is that there is no evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, was intending to put this up for AfD myself if the creator continued to ignore attempts to open a communication. --McGeddon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. I might recommend redirecting to the book, if only the book were notable, but that is not the case either. Agricolae (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least as our article here is written, this looks very WP:FRINGEy: throwing around buzzwords from important but unrelated areas as if that were all that was needed to propose a theory. We shouldn't have articles on such topics until they have attracted enough mainstream attention to be able to write something properly neutral about them, even if it's only "not even wrong". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came to the same conclusion as JamesBWatson but didn't have much time to put together the excellent argument for deletion when I saw it. The single-purpose account promoting this new theory that has not had any time to be either reviewed or ignored in scientific literature or books. I'm reminded very much of Koolokamba (talk · contribs) (Eugene McCarthy) who had been promoting his website and a 4-year old self-published self-proclaimed revolutionary book that contained his ideas on evolution. (Discussion here at the Tree of Life WikiProject for the curious). Anyway, the theory needs time for additional sources to establish its notability. At the very least I'd like to see someone in the literature publish a response or criticism so that balance could be included but perhaps no scientist will see it worth their time. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not (yet) notable. The article seems to exist only to advertise a recent paper that has had 0 citations, and the article title does not appear in searches. -- 202.124.88.21 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Law Firm

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

Does not meet WP:GNG because law firm does not have significant coverage, it is only mentioned in one source of the wikipedia article and has limited discussion elsewhere. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - draft article was declined at Articles for Creation but moved to mainspace by author anyway. The current article seems more about Randell K. Wood, based on a few brief mentions of him in press articles. I can find nothing online, apart from directory listings, that pay any attention to his law firm. Company fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this was a biography, this would be deleted as being WP:ONEEVENT. So this small Missouri law firm cooked up a lobbying scam to get themselves some publicity and make a few Libyan oil dollars... Well WP is not the news and it isn't a soapbox either. As an aside, whoever wrote the article appears to be unacquainted with English grammar. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 15:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 19 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Social Pedagogy

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNAL as far as I can see. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure how the journal doesn't meet WP:NJOURNAL. It addresses an academic field that is gaining traction in English-speaking countries and is well-established in other European countries. Contributors to the first issue are internationally well-known, and the editorial board includes academics from University of London, University of Athens, University of Strathclyde, VIA University College Aarhus, University of Bangor, University of Portsmouth and Gent University. Gabriel.eichsteller (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Gabe[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NJournals decisively, as well as WP:GNG. No independent sources. Not included in any selective major database. None of the arguments given above by one of the journal's editors has anything to do with notability. Journal is rather new and only 2 issues have one issue has been published yet. Article creation vastly premature. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This subject does not meet criteria for WP:NJournals and general notability standards for Wikipedia articles because this journal is not listed in any selective databases and is not covered by other independent reliable sources. Also, this publication probably has not been in existence long enough to develop notability. However, looking at the web site and the title of the articles available, it certainly has potential, and may merit inclusion at a later date. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:25, 23 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of employment websites

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

Surely this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY Gbawden (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed Category:employment websites exists anyway. The first version of this was strangely chatty and represented a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is: it's been since pruned to just a raw list. Morwen (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I wouldn't oppose creation of a new list. Precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of social networking websites (2nd nomination) suggests it's a suitable topic, and if it's limited to sites that Wikipedia has articles about, it's an index of content and doesn't fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I would recommend waiting for further development of the list, as it was created recently, but the descriptions there (now removed) appear to have been copied from pcmag.com[14] and there's no evidence of permission. Peter James (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons I've mentioned, with revision deletion of the content that has been removed. Peter James (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It fits none of the sections in WP:NOTDIR, so I fail to understand the nominator rationale, nor I see anywhere else it could fails policy/guidelines. All entries are bluelinks. I pruned the first version and I wanted to improve it to bring it close to List of social networking websites or other analogous lists. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the nomination is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please actually read WP:NOTDIR, which states at the beginning that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." The way to cure a NOTDIR problem with a list of websites is to remove all the non-notable entries; only if there are too few or if the very organizing concept of the list is somehow flawed would a list of notable websites be deleted. There are 72 articles on different employment websites in Category:Employment websites, more than enough to justify a list. So keep per WP:LISTPURP, WP:CLN, and (ironically) NOTDIR as a standard index of articles. postdlf (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, per WP:NOTDIR, "Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content"; This article is not in violation of WP:NOTDIR, because it functions as an index of Wikipedia content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the category, as this page essentially is a category page; unlike the List of social networking websites, this page has practically no information besides an enumeration. ModelUN (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no such thing as "merging" a list with a category. And regarding your comparison to the other list, why do you think this list can't be annotated as well? postdlf (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list only shows bluelinks of similar articles so its a perfectly valid list article. Additional information could be written about each entry. Perhaps even a chart listing their creation date, how many people use them, their Alexa traffic rating, etc. Dream Focus 15:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Sirotkin (politician)

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

per WP:POLITICIAN. Cybervoron (talk) 05:31, 19 July 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 July 19. Snotbot t • c » 05:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN #1: elected member of the Russian lower house. AllyD (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members of national parliaments pass WP:POLITICIAN. A quick GNews archive search confirms that the subject is a member of the State Duma. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly does pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not only National but members of regional legislative houses also passes WP:POLITICIAN. The Legend of Zorro 12:11, 23 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VV Dronrijp

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

I found nothing to show that this amateur sports team is notable. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to have played in the KNVB Cup so fails WP:FOOTYN and no significant coverage means it also fails WP:GNG. T 88 R (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:18, 22 July 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) 16:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lofty idealism

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

There no such separate concept. It is merely a phrase "lofty"+"idealism", to express the concept of extreme (ethical) idealism. The construct is akin to other stable collocations, such as die-hard fan or brutal capitalism. The article does not give a definition (I failed to find one either). The abundant references are merely examples of someone being praised for or accused of "lofty idealism". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that the term has been used at least three times notably, in the context of two US presidents and one Nobel citation. It's very unlikely for this to have been simply an incidental adjective-noun pairing. A quick search shows it having popped up in the titles of other publications, see this article, this article, and the title of this book. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ideal (ethics). It is lofty when someone tries to live by his or her ideals, but we don't need another article on that when we already have one that explains the concept. This article only documents the use of this expression, without really explaining why lofty idealism is distinct from ordinary idealism. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no encyclopedic content to merge, and your definition is contestable, not to say unreferenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be merged to Ideal (ethics), Idealism, and/or Idealism in international relations, and redirect to the last one, per above. Doesn't actually define the phrase; if it did I suspect it would border on WP:DICDEF. Ansh666 06:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that several sources have used the phrase doesn't make it a notable subject. I can find dozens of sources which use the phrase "vivid imagination" or "artistic perfection", but neither of those expressions are article-worthy. What you need is a source which defines the phrase and discusses its usage, and the people to whom it's been applied. I doubt you'll find such a source, because "lofty idealism" is just an arbitrary combination of words. I don't think there's anything to be merged here, since the article's nothing more than a list of people who have been called lofty idealists. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am with DoctorKubla here. The article does not explain the term, and the citations used do not suggest anything other than emphasis. 'Lofty' is an appropriate pairing with idealism, as 'strong' is with characterisation; we cannot infer from either that the writer is intending to represent something different in nature and meaning from the unembellished word alone. Anyone seeking to understand its usage in the cited examples is going to have to refer to Ideal (ethics). Even if evidence for some special significance of the phrase could be produced, it is difficult to envisage the explanation belonging anywhere other than in that article. I suspect that people would have spoken of a writer's or politician's 'idealism', or 'lofty idealism' more or less interchangeably and it would not reflect anything more than degree. Even when used pejoratively, idealism and lofty idealism both convey much the same sense. --AJHingston (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sign this is a term with a consistent or notable use. Hairhorn (talk) 16:29, 19 July 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 incoming links in article space, so no need to determine now whether this should be a redirect or to where. postdlf (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R. Nicholson

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

A single-line entry that does not even give his full name does not meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. There are a bizallion google hits, but with without a full name it's really hard to work out which are this person and which are someone else. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching for "R. Nicholson Bombay" narrows it down a bit, and I can find a few snippets of information, but ultimately not enough to hang an article on. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that this was probably Lieut-Gen Robert Nicholson (1745-1821) who served in the Bombay establishment for 53 years according to the The Gentleman's Magazine. Lost a leg at the siege of Barouche in 1772 (although I cant find any information on that) "He finally succeeded in being Chief Engineer and ultimately Commander of the Forces at Bombay" he returned to England in 1803. MilborneOne (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lieutenant generals are presumed notable per WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Nicholson (general). Based on what [[MilborneOne discovered, I have created an article, rendering the present stub unnecessary. I have not checked if anything links here; if not, delete as unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are links, but only to personal and project pages. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Nicholson (general) thanks to Peterkingiron for that. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not clear why R. Nicholson should uniquely refer to Robert Nicholson (general), it could also refer to another Robert Nicholson as well as to Richard Nicholson, or Reginald Nicholson, or someone else. Cavarrone 07:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Cavarrone is entirely correct. Now a proper article has been created, this article serves no further purpose. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

46664 (number)

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

As a number, this is completely unnotable. It looks to me like this article only exists because 46664 is also the prison number of Nelson Mandela. But that's to do with him, not the number. — Amakuru (talk) 00:11, 19 July 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 July 19. Snotbot t • c » 00:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't have individual pages for most numbers this high, and there's nothing here that proves this is anything except a run-of-the-mill number.Beerest355 Talk 02:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article on a number? This really must be a joke. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 02:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"NintendoFan", you display your ignorance. No one (except you?) would suggest that 1729 (number) should be deleted. And we have others like those. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable as a number. Ansh666 06:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, not useful as redirect due to disambig in title. Ansh666 06:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this number per nom - it's so unusual... WP:NUMBER --みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:WINI. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and comments. That being said there are a whole lot of these based on OR of every time a given number has appeared in a movie or a book. Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 46664 (concerts) VQuakr (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for this redirect - I doubt anyone is going to type "46664 (number)" if they are looking for the concerts. However, if 46664 (number) is deleted as a result of this AfD, then 46664 (concerts) should be moved to simply 46664. Agricolae (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the disambiguation in the title makes it useless as a redirect. I note, however, that 46664 (song) was once created but was deleted under CSD/G12; 46664 itself might be useful as a dab in itself in the future. Ansh666 22:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what happened. I read the title as 46664 in my mind... anyways, that redirect should be changed to a redirect (or future disambig) to 46664 (concerts); I am fine with delete for this article in question. VQuakr (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently interesting mathematically (and numerologically) to pass WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 19 July 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems

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

Hello. I'm a Japanese Wikipedia (jawp) sysop. In jawp, this article is becoming a issue by the reason of copyvio. (ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/世界重要農業遺産システム, in Japanese.) For example, "Worldwide, specific agricultural ..." from [15], "For millennia communities" from [16], "In response to the global trends" from [17], "are selected based on their..." from [18]. Please determine whether this is a copyvio or not. Freetrashbox (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable WP:SPAM; no comment on copyvio. Ansh666 06:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And then, after deletion, redirect per PWilkinson below. (My Google seems to be a bit worse than everyone else's Google...) Ansh666 18:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The standard Google searches strongly suggest that the topic is notable. However, searches on phrase fragments almost always seem to secure hits on either the GIAHS website or FAO documents, from which whole paragraphs or sections have been copied either word-for-word or with minimal alterations. I would regard most of the copied documents as being suitable for use as primary sources, but that is probably beside the point - the likelihood of most or all of the article being COPYVIO is unfortunately very high. PWilkinson (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What Google searches have you been doing? I can't find anything besides related sites, at least in English. Remember that notability requires independent secondary sources. Ansh666 21:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio and redirect to FAO#Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems Following on from my previous comment, the article seems to be largely (and may well be entirely) copied from this publication. I can't find any direct statement of the document's copyright status, but there is no indication that the FAO has licensed its use on terms that would allow us to copy it here. The document itself should probably be regarded as a reliable primary source - one of its authors, Miguel Altieri, is a distinctly notable academic, and the other has a citation record which, while probably not outstanding enough to meet WP:PROF, is still more than decent. So far as the redirect goes, GBooks and GScholar both show a number of sources - and while the detailed ones tend to be more or less primary, a substantial number of independent secondary ones give the FAO project a paragraph or two, quite enough to justify the brief section which (using one of them) I have added to FAO. PWilkinson (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Lourey

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

Non-notable author. No indications that either she or any of her books have received any significant attention. No reviews outside of Goodreads, and no press coverage of her other than some very local stuff. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to national reviews (Boston Globe, Tulsa World) have been added, as well as links to starred reviews from two of the four (Library Journal, Booklist) national reviewers. Kirkus and Publishers Weekly (the other of the big four) reviews are available on her website, which is also linked to the article.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 19 July 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 International versions of Jeopardy!. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! (Quebec game show)

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

Non-notable French edition of Jeopardy. Beerest355 Talk 23:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International versions of Jeopardy!. There's not really anything to show that this incarnation is really notable enough to merit anything other than a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to International versions of Jeopardy!, as this particular version is not particularly notable. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No references; no real claim of notability being made beyond documenting its existence. Redirect to International versions of Jeopardy!; it warrants mention there, certainly, but doesn't really need its own independent article. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 20 July 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.