Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 25 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_July_25

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) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability questioned. Does not appear to have significant, widespread coverage in independent sources. Wkharrisjr (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage appears to be mostly his own books and clones of this article. Fails WP:N. -- 202.124.72.26 (talk) 09:44, 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) 04:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. If information contained herein is questionable, get the subject involved himself to contribute to or confirm data on his bio page. David Demola is well-known enough as a public figure in Christian circles (e.g. his programming on Trinity Broadcasting Network, Daystar) to easily reach. Does not fail WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal4ever4u (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I simply do not see the sources. There are a few fugitive book references, but they do no better than attach him to his congregation and place him within a particular movement. Web searches are filled with directory information and hits on his own site or places where he has preached. All of the concrete information I can find other than the prosperity theology stuff is surely taken from his own website, and the theological criticism stuff is a significant BLP issue given that it's something of an editor synthesis of the the movement in general and the few fugitive linkages I was able to find. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article fails Notability specific criteria for people and also fails GNG, also publishing books do not instantly confers notability. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:05, 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) 05:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Cienega Heights, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not Notable. Not listed in the Thomas Guide or in Mapping L.A. Simply a real-estate development. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Redirect to Crestview, Los Angeles. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I am not mistaken, there is no WP:Reliable source indicating that Crestview itself is a true, Notable neighborhood. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has an article. Maybe that should be your next nomination. 0;-D For now, it has an article and La Cienega Heights claims to be part of it. La Cienega Boulevard has an article but does not seem an appropriate redirect target. If there is doubt about the target, I have no objection to Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 24 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject lacks coverage of any relevancy thus making it non notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:27, 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 redirect to Brentwood, Los Angeles. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenter Canyon, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a Notable neighborhood. Not mentioned in the Thomas Guide or in Mapping L.A. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only notable structure in the area was Kenter Canyon Elementary Charter School. I assume this is how the developer found the proposal of creating an article on this particular topic. However, I could not found any reliable sources of any verifiability for a neighborhood itself. Kenter Canyon is not mentioned in any notable newspaper or website, such as Mapping L.A., as well. TBrandley (T • C • B) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Brentwood, Los Angeles. I found a few references, but not enough to build an article around. This from the Los Angeles Times indicates that the city regarded it as a real neighborhood as long ago as 1941. And several sources mentioned it as part of Brentwood. So it should not be deleted, but a redirect/merge is appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per reasons cited above, the article fails to establish verifiability and also fails to meet GNG. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge to Brentwood, Los Angeles. Possible search topic, so a redirect to parent location is in order. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:02, 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) 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a Notable neighborhood. Not mentioned in the Thomas Guide or in the Los Angeles Times' Mapping L.A. compendium. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Redirect to Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles. Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would not do any good because there is no map of this place, so we would not know if it is actually part of Hollywood Hills or not. Just my opinion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good point. The article says it is in Hollywood Hills, but in a search just now I couldn't confirm that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:52, 23 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yeah, redirects are cheap but if there is confusion about where it should be redirected and no real value in doing so anyway (as an unlikely search term) then there's no point. Beyond that, couldn't find more than a passing mention in non-RS sources. Stalwart111 01:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non notable, also I don't see a redirect working here, it is going to generate confusion as pointed above. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:50, 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) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGRE S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This company does not appear to have been notable and it is no longer clear that it exists since the link to its website is dead. It was also created by a sockmaster user:Edson Rosa and their socks. I am One of Many (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no evidence of notability. In fact, if it weren't for the statement that it "was one of the largest real estate companies in Brazil", it would look like a speedy deletion candidate under speedy deletion criterion A7. However, I can find no confirmation of that claim. The creator of the article, who appears to have been a professional spammer, created numerous articles on businesses with similar claims of being "one of the biggest"/"the biggest"/"the third biggest" business in its field in its part of the world, and to the best of my knowledge never provided any sources to substantiate such claims. Certainly this article lacks substantiation. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 19 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Existence is not notability in itself, and this can only ben seen to have been a transient firm which filed accounts in 2009 and 2010. And that's it. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:CORP criterias for maintenance within WP. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:02, 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. no prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heli Attack 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A video game that received no reliable coverage. The entire article reads like WP:GAMEGUIDE. Beerest355 Talk 02:40, 10 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) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Heli Attack (series), or Heli Attack 3 if we decide the series article isn't notable either. Ansh666 06:05, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Heli Attack (series) or Heli Attack 3 per Ansh666; article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 21:00, 24 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've nominated the series page for deletion, as well - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heli Attack (series). Ansh666 20:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject is non notable, even though text format is no a reason for delete, the article is not encyclopedic. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 13:54, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable doll. The article is essentially a pure promo piece, devoid of any in-line references, and a Google search turns up nothing in the way of reliable sources. Neither external link in the article is reliable. Some of the results in the search turn up references to Charles Dickins' books, which appear to be totally unconnected. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as a copyvio. Appears to be copied directly from multiple websites. --Glaisher [talk] 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy is fine if the copyvio notice is true. However, some non-copyvio version should exist as Cricket was definitely a notable doll. She was a big hit when released, making it into the top 10 toys of that year and making Playmates Toys into a major industry force. Sources are mostly going to be from the mid-80s and mostly not online, but there is some coverage on Google News, as well as this piece from the LA Times which suggests the dolls were used in treating anxiety in children (and were once a permanent exhibit in the LA Children's Museum). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't speedy unless you can specify the websites. I removed the tag but anyone is free to replace it if they give the sites. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mentioned in Vanguard Volume 17 (Vancouver Art Gallery., 1988), Social World of Pupil Assessment: Processes and Contexts of Primary Schooling Ann Filer, Andrew Pollard ISBN 9781847143969 p.117 and Out of the Garden: Toys, Tv, and Children's Culture in the Age of Marketing Stephen Kline Verso 1993 ISBN 9781859840597 p.262 . Lots more coverage in nostalgia blogs and sales on eBay, but those three sources, plus the coverage Andrew picked up, ought to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Should be at least possible to wipe out any copyvios and start again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 19 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, Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:51, 25 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:34, 1 August 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) 05:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD removed for no reason. Original concern was "This is a non-notable topic. There are, of course, sources to say that sporting events do have official equipment suppliers, but this is not an encyclopaedic subject backed up by reliable, third-party sources to say so." Concerns have not been met since PROD was removed, so original concern stands. – PeeJay 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 20:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Glossary of association football terms as probable search term, but not independently notable. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The term can refer to any ball game. If the article is deleted, search results would be more useful than a definition, as its meaning is obvious. Peter James (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Essentially a dictionary definition with an attached list. The redirect noted above is problematic as any sporting league which uses a ball would potentially have an official ball supplier -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It currently provides no useful information that cannot be found within existing articles (eg FIFA world cup). I'm struggling to understand the scenario when people would want such disparate information (ie who cares about the differences between the suppliers of american footballs and association footballers). The article fails a number of things in WP:NOT. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:42, 30 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. The creator wishes to withdraw the nomination. NAC. Beerest355 Talk 20:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence that this person ever existed. If someone can point me a source that this person existed will withdraw my nomination. The Legend of Zorro 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Please do at least a Google search before making such a deletion nomination. See Deutches Museum, Worldcat another RS, another RS, Harvard history of science. another RS. Now please withdraw your pointless and ill-considered nomination. Edison (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my Google Books search were all giving book results of Janet Taylor Lisle. I was doing new page patrol and since at least one other requested speedy deletion I suspected it is a hoax. Withdrawing nomination. The Legend of Zorro 19:27, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of a Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The poem is insufficiently notable for its own article. It is sufficient that it is briefly mentioned in the System of a Down article. TigerShark (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of why this is notable. No evidence of detailed coverage (e.g. in reviews, literary criticism, even coverage of the author.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - possible copyvio. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All I could find in terms of coverage is single line entries in articles which mention the poem as the source of theaname for System of a Down. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 30 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) 05:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

College basketball coach who fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Sportsman doesn't establish notability. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a well-known or major coach, per nom. Royalbroil 01:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Hasn't been a D1 head coach and hasn't been a notable assistant (very few assistants are notable unless it is for some other reason such as their playing career). Rikster2 (talk) 13:32, 29 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) 05:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:COMPANY on given sources - the strongest sources provided are a WP:PRIMARYNEWS interview in the Italian Wired magazine, and being "mentioned" alongside nine other companies in a guest post on Forbes. Every other source appears to be a blog or the company website. McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject doesn't establish notability, also article may inflict upon lack of substatial coverage. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sources do not establish notability. It's also worth mentioning that the Forbes guest post is written by David Drake, who is the CEO/founder of 'The Soho Loft', a PR company. The Soho Loft has some sort of business relationship with 'Grow VC' see here for a comment by Grow VC's CEO. Grow VC is the parent company of Crowd Valley. - MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 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 by User:Starblind under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be self-promotional spam, copied from http://www.richardskipper.com/ (I assume this is the user's own website). Andrew_pmk | Talk 16:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The article violates speedy criterias WP:A7, WP:G11 and WP:G2 Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:31, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:SOLDIER & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In addition, has received no coverage in verifiable independent sources. Finnegas (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This seems to be an unfortunate nomination as there are independent and verifiable sources referencing Joynt, including, but not limited to [4], [5] and [6]. Quis separabit? 16:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per WP:1EVENT, the subject is known for a single event, that is does not make him instantly notable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article slightly. Also, Joynt is specifically commemorated in the Air Forces (Runnymede) Memorial for his bravery and gallantry. Quis separabit? 22:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Joynt is commemorated alongside 20,000 fellow memebers of the RAF at Runnymede Memorial, does not confer any notability. Finnegas (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, the Runnymede Memorial merely commemorates RAF personnel with no known grave. Inclusion on it does not make an individual any more notable than having his name on a gravestone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable in WP:MILHIST terms. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see no reason why this individual is any more notable than any other RAF pilot killed in the war. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:1EVENT....William 12:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Necrothesp. Snappy (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The information in this article is WP:V however I think this is a clear cut case of WP:1E because all WP:V information seems to be related to the event of his disappearance/death. Based on this, I vote to delete. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 19:10, 28 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. --BDD (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

First version of the page was deleted via BLPPROD on May 24, 2013. It was recreated on July 7, 2013, now with some sources. But none are independent reliable sources, but come from his own blog, promotional casting pages, or IMDb. Search of internet finds no sustained coverage for an actor who even according to IMDb has only appeared in minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR. Michitaro (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of thirdparty or indepedent sources, the subject does not establish notability as per wp:BIO. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No coverage, nor are there significant roles based on his credits. -- Whpq (talk) 22:20, 30 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 Taylor Mitchell. Users interested in performing a merge can use the page history to do so, although there's very little besides a track listing, and no sources. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Consideration (Taylor Mitchell album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Zero notability. Beerest355 Talk 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge to Taylor Mitchell. I found a couple of reviews (Exclaim!, Now Toronto). Covering this within the article about her would probably be best. --Michig (talk) 09:48, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:56, 18 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - The article seems to be way WP:POV and WP:OR to be merged onto parent article Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Taylor Mitchell. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:49, 28 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. The previous nomination was made recently and closed as speedy keep. It's incredibly unlikely anything different will turn up here. NAC. Beerest355 Talk 16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Be Bold. This girl is NN. D. Wiki hero-worship Cruft. Train Derailment2013 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. While I initially voted to delete in the first AfD, as per OP's argument, I feel that this has become a serious, horrid case of re-nominating until you get the result you want. It's time for the community to accept that this article is here and only renominate it when there are some actual, new reasons to do so. This AfD presents nothing different to the last two (!) and I can't see any reason why we should sit through this again. — Richard BB 15:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment – It's also worth pointing out that OP's account is a brand new one, and 5/6 of his edits are all single-purpose in trying to delete this article (the sixth edit is to his own user page). A complete and utter bad-faith nomination. — Richard BB 15:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Be bolder. Speedy keep as an obvious bad-faith troll. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Nom. I am sincerely sorry you feel this way. I am, however, working with the best interests of the Wikipedia community (Gemeinschaft) in mind. Sometimes drastic measures must be taken in the name of the community's interest. Train Derailment2013 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed they must. I am considering proposing that any further nominations for deletion to this article be estricted to contributors with a good and substantial editing record. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting ridiculous. Keep. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Block troll, put this BLP under semiprotection, move on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. As of this writing, fourteen of the article's seventeen references are IMDb pages, and one is a Vimeo video. This leaves two legitimate sources, both of which simply introduce an embedded video by the company without discussing anything about the company. It's also the creation of a WP:SPA, for what that's worth. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete for now. Allow back once more coverage is forthcoming. I went ahead and addressed some of the nominator's concerns by removing the cites to IMDB and Vimeo, and by adding a few proper ones speaking about the company's works. If the awards can be sourced, we may have enough notability through their works to meet WP:CORP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:19, 20 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTNOW and nuff said. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:21, 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 redirect to You've Come a Long Way, Baby. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Build It Up – Tear It Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As this single has failed to chart, I can't see how this meets the notability guidelines for music. Minima© (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No references. --kikichugirl ^inquire 03:21, 25 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to You've Come a Long Way, Baby. -- Whpq (talk) 22:21, 30 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. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Elon Phoenix football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia articles should not be about events which have not yet taken place per the following policy: WP:BALL. KDS4444^Talk 14:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The games start in less than a month, but the season has technically already started for Wiki purposes. Wikipedia allows areas that fall under sports season talkbacks to be prepared and posted in advance of games being played. Furthermore, part of the season talkback is recruiting. The recruiting took place in April, which means that the actual season talkback could have began back in April. Additional parts of season talkbacks include coaching changes, which typically take place back in January and February. All these items fall under the next seasons team status, and since all of these have already taken place, then the page isn't posted in advance of any event outside the games.Bigddan11 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate the specific policy page stating such an exception (not that I don't believe you, but I want to know so that I don't make the mistake of nominating a season talkback article for premature deletion in the future). Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 16:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My entire point, that you apparently didn't understand, is that the season has already started for these teams. The Spring Games, that take place in March/ April, the national letter of intent day that takes place in February, the Conference Media Day that takes place in July, and any coaching changes that take place all go under the classification of the 2013 season, not the 2012 season, meaning this talkback is actually overdue, as it should have been created for NLI day in February. If you want to look at some clear exceptions to the rule of not creating a talkback before a game takes place, just look at Super Bowl XLIX, 2014 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, and 2014 Winter Olympics (to point out just a few). In all these cases, the event is allowed to be posted as soon as the city is selected, and in the case of something like the Summer Olympics, they already have pages created through 2020. Bigddan11 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And my entire point, which apparently you didn't understand, was to provide a link to the policy which states the exception to the rule(as was done by another editor below). There was no need to be uncivil. The request was a friendly but your response was not. I withdraw my deletion nomination and ask you to be more polite about responding to such a request from other editors in the future. KDS4444^Talk 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read that as being uncivil, just not exactly clear nor complete in responding to the original request.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually going to post the reasoning behind why sports Wiki articles are allowed on the 26th, but when I got on to do so, Paulmcdonald had already posted why the exception exists. On the 25th though I was trying to help you realize when the season begins for these teams. It doesn't begin with the first game. It doesn't begin when practices start in August. It begins all the way back in February, with National Letter of Intent Day. I apologize if I seemed rude or belligerent, for that was never my intent. Obviously I side with those that say KEEP for the reasons listed and because the season has already started when you look at NLI day being the first day of the new season for these football teams.Bigddan11 (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there presently is already information in the media about the season. Although the first game of the season has yet to be played, significant discussion about the season has begun and that is enough to pass the requirement of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically point 1: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The season clearly passes WP:GNG for notability and it is almost certain to take place, thus clearly passing the threshold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously, for all of the reasons cited above by Paulmcdonald. The season opening is only a month away, and any chance that the games won't be played is so minuscule as to be virtually nil. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:02, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bound & Gagged (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this magazine. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This gay B&D magazine does not seem to be the subject of multiple instances of independently-published coverage — or any, it would seem, unless one counts the "Best Of" book. The now-deceased editor of the magazine, Robert W. Davolt might clear the notability bar, at least some chance of that. If anyone feels strongly about this material, I'd suggest launching the bio and merging in information there. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, was easily able to find secondary source coverage in Toronto Star, and The Bay Area Reporter. There are additionally lots of results in books, including Of Men, Ropes and Remembrance: Stories from Bound & Gagged Magazine, and A Queer Geography: Journeys Toward a Sexual Self. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anything about this in the first source and the second source is about a book. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second source merely mentions this magazine in the context of reviewing a book by one of its former columnists, so definitely not "significant coverage". postdlf (talk) 19:02, 18 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sooooo... Let's delete the article, then start a new article, not about the magazine, but about the editor; then find an admin willing to provide a copy of the deleted article, and then merge the information from this article (which, of course, needed to be deleted) into that article? Only on Wikipedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one even said that the editor was notable for sure. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 20 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) 11:29, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:WEB, I can’t find significant coverage in reliable sources for this website. January (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom, has not attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners and very little notice from independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 18 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) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only this shows a little change of notability, but you have to win an award, not just be nominated for one, to be notable. ^King Jakob _C2 12:04, 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 delete. A spirited defense by User:FreeRangeFrog, but consensus is to delete.Kubigula (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page looks to me like nothing other than a personal advertisement. I don’t see evidence of any significant contribution to a particular genre of music, the music industry in general, etc. It appears that the subject was covered about 40 years ago in a small number of articles by a regional newspaper in South Africa, however this does not constitute significant coverage. The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NRVE (Of the 3 sources, 2 and 3 are links to Levine’s personal website. Source 1 is a broken link), WP:ARTIST, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, etc. Pagepatrol007 (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I remember this landing on WP:BLP/N a few weeks ago and I remember noting it would be difficult to source the subject's notability, as he was active primarily in South Africa in the 1970s. Well that's true. It is difficult! I added a couple of references to the article, including a mention in a 1975 issue of Billboard magazine to the effect that one of his songs was doing well in the charts, plus one from a listing in a book about contemporary South African music where he is credited with having written "Baby Love Affair". I don't pretend that this is significant coverage as we define it, but I do believe that given the amount of videos and views on YouTube from these songs that they must have been very popular. I have no idea how music was charted in SA in the 70s, but a mention in that context from Billboard is not trivial at all. Just one of those cases where I have a hunch we're missing a lot of possible sources simply because they are offline. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s not reasonable to rely on speculation about the existence of notable/significant offline sources to justify the existence of this page. As it stands, nobody has found any independent secondary sources that demonstrate Levine meets the criteria for a wiki page, as outlined in WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. If such sources do exist I encourage the creators of this page or anybody else interested in this topic to find them and upload them. Right now however this page still completely fails to meet all of the eligibility criteria I mentioned in my nom.

And with regards to the mention in Billboard and the book on the contemporary music in South Africa, both are absolutely trivial mentions. In Billboard there was an article written about the company that Levine’s co-writer founded. In one sentence of the article, it mentioned that Levine was a member of a group called Buttercup that wrote a popular song. The same is true for the two sentences where Levine is mentioned in the book. There is no emphasis on Levine whatsoever.

With regards to the handful of youtube clips of Levine/the group Buttercup, all of them except 1 had views numbering in the hundreds. Only one had over 1000 (~5000). This does not illustrate any notable level of popularity/significance/notability etc.

I could maybe see this individual’s page being incorporated into a larger article about the contemporary South African music industry or a similar topic. However because the page clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV etc this should not be left as a standalone article. Pagepatrol007 (talk) 02:14, 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 18 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) 11:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MUSIC, does not appear to be any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Specifically nothing we can really build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NRVE, a Google search failed to reveal anything else about him that we could include. Therefore, it fails to indicate notability. Discography also seems to be a list of promotional content. — kikichugirl ^inquire 19:33, 4 August 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 Yellowdog Updater, Modified. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable, BLP1E at about the loosest definition of 1E available (developing a utility for an operating system). Google hits seem to indicate nobody heard of him until his death (three obits and his personal Google+ page in the first page of hits, and all his professional information is sourced from the subject's own resume, which, while hopefully not fake, likely runs afoul of RS. MSJapan (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has only one day old, and missing many things to write. References can be found easily before his death, for example, here or here --GM83 (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, all RS coverage is obit focused. No indication of notability apart from his creation of Yellowdog Updater, Modified. The slideshow linked above is not a reliable source. Dialectric (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• How about a merge into Yellowdog Updater, Modified (yum)? He also worked quite a bit on the Fedora Project apparently, but not sure that would merit independent notability either. I added a little bit to the yum article, but maybe one sentence is all it takes. W Nowicki (talk) 23:23, 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 18 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) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Yellowdog Updater, Modified: that's a clearly notable piece of software, and coverage of the creator would be a useful addition. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is entirely based on a US patent, which is WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I wasn't able find any confirmation that this particular patent was actually used in some machine gun. Its appearance in a long list of machine gun patents in a US gov work (by Chinn) does not make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Also, this was a Nordenfelt-type design and these were exceedingly rare in the US (something like 3 exemplars adopted by the US navy). The chances of a US-resident making an impact with this patent are very slim. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Just another article based on a patent. There is no information anywhere that this gun ever existed.--RAF910 (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and precedent. Ansh666 22:38, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER IMO - Don't see any evidence that he is particularly notable other than receiving the Leftwich tropy. Gbawden (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. WP:BASIC is a guideline which establishes that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Sparks has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of him. Therefore, he is notable.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources? Arguably none of the sources cited on the page are both independent and reliable (all are US Marine publications). The Battle for Marjah may be suitable, if it includes cover specifically of Sparks, but that's still to be demonstrated. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Marine Corps Association and the Marine Corps Times are independent private organizations; while they use the name "Marine Corps" in their organization's name they are not part of the United States Marine Corps. These are NOT Marine Corps publications. If you need more reliable sources you can use [7] from News 14 Carolina, [8] from WCTI-TV, and [9] from WNCT-TV. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Marine Corps Association and Marine Corps Times are effectively in-house associations and publications, and are not useful for establishing notability. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable junior officer who has received an obscure trophy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider an award personally selected by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and nominated by fellow company commanders as "obscure". I would also not consider Sparks "non-notable" per this rationale, his Silver Star, and his appearance in the documentary The Battle for Marjah. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's obscure. It might be known within the USMC, but it's basically just a prize. Prizes are awarded by organisations all over the world. They have to be pretty damn significant for their recipients to be automatically notable. After all, we only consider recipients of a country's top decoration for gallantry to be automatically notable, not any lesser (but still a lot more notable than this) awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E: at best this person has one source of fame, and this is basically an obscure internal award. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Nick-D. GregJackP Boomer! 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Operation Moshtarak. I think most of the sourced material is in the 1st sentence or two. The large bio section seems unsupported by independent sources. Presumably the army record can be sourced from army records, but I feel this is a WP:BLP1E case as both the award/medal and documentary coverage are about the same thing. (The article about the operation could use a sort-of aftermath section: medals doled out, documentaries made about it, etc.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:13, 31 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) 00:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER IMO - Don't see any evidence that he is particularly notable other than receiving the Leftwich tropy Gbawden (talk) 10:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a policy nor a guideline. WP:BASIC is a guideline which establishes that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Middendorf has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of him. Therefore, he is notable.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY. WP:SOLDIER documents well-established WP:CONSENSUS in this area. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that marinecorptimes.com and armytimes.com are the same article but differently badged. The airforcetimes.com is not visible but is by the same author. The militarytimes.com article is also by that author. This makes the claim for multiplicity of sources less certain. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually now I've looked again, that Military Times article is a excerpt from the marinescopstimes.com article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because marinecorpstimes.com, armytimes.com, and airforcetimes.com are all subsidiaries of the same parent company, Gannett Government Media, in the same way that CNN and Time are owned by Time-Warner, their parent company. They are still intellectually independent of each other as the guidelines establishes. If this is an issue we can easily provide more reliable sources such as [10] (the public domain article from which all other articles are based), [11] from Post-Bulletin, the largest evening newspaper in Minnesota, and the largest daily newspaper in Southeastern Minnesota, and [12] from KTTC. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think those other sources will be needed. The "editorial" listing for each oft he websites has the same names. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't dispute that military newspapers and magazines are going to mention the person concerned - but at the same time they will mention thousands of sailors and soldiers - none of whom may meet WP:SOLDIER. Gbawden (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly redirect to Leftwich Trophy. Seems like a case of WP:BLP1E to me, that being winning the Leftwich. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that as well but then you have his appearance in the National Geographic documentary, Battleground Afghanistan, in which he was given considerable camera time and focus. So in this case it would be the trophy + his appearance in the documentary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable junior officer who has received an obscure trophy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider an award personally selected by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and nominated by fellow company commanders as "obscure". I would also not consider Middendorf "non-notable" per this rationale and his appearance in the documentary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An obscure award for the majority of readers, though not necessarily within the Corps. Unfortunately, the Leftwich Trophy seems under-referenced with respect to the General notability guideline - of the references and external links given all bar one are from USMC websites. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's obscure. It might be known within the USMC, but it's basically just a prize. Prizes are awarded by organisations all over the world. They have to be pretty damn significant for their recipients to be automatically notable. After all, we only consider recipients of a country's top decoration for gallantry to be automatically notable, not any lesser (but still a lot more notable than this) awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Notability is not established here. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete / redirect per WP:BLP1E. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should add that the best encyclopedic approach here is to write an article about Operation Lariat. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:08, 31 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. The Times of India article merely quotes the company's CEO on another topic and so is not coverage of the company, and the DNA "article" is merely a press release. All other keep !votes are without basis in policy or guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Company does not meet WP:CORP. Most of the given refs are press releases. Dewritech (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Company is unique and is well known for what is does over here in India. Some references appear to be press releases, but other eferences check out. Recommend article not be deleted. Taylor.fu]] (talk) 4:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• I get a bunch of SMSs from these guys. Keep the article, seems legit and a source of community knowledge. 115.115.115.66 (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Jay[reply]
• I created the article. I put a lot of work into it, and tried my hardest to maintain an extremely neutral tone and to cite any facts that may be questionable. I made this article because this company is the biggest player in it's field, and almost all Indians get messages via them. Please keep • bariummessiah (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 3 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) 00:11, 9 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 · · 04:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very little coverage outside of press releases. None of the "keep" !voters above are making policy-based arguments. If you think the company is notable, you need to provide sources to prove it. Just saying "I've heard of it" isn't good enough. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Times of India and DNA are two pretty big papers. If they have articles about your company, it must be notable enough. The other users also mentioned how it's the biggest player in its area of expertise which seems to be SMS tech Kochigirl (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that Kochigirl's user page was created by User:Bariummessiah, the creator of this article. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, SPI FYI. Stalwart111 14:20, 25 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 25. Snotbot  t • c »  10:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the lack of policy-based argument from the "keep crowd" suggests creation but someone or a group of someones that just don't understand basic WP policy. Single lines from the company's founder/CEO don't constitute "significant coverage", regardless of where they are printed. The DNA "article" is just a reprint of material from PR Newswire - a press release publishing service - and the article credits someone from the company and the Zeenews "article" is the same. There just isn't enough there to constitute WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 10:27, 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: There's consensus to keep the parent,delete the teams, and merge the seasons. I've done the deletions; will Harrias or someone please clean up redirects etc. as needed. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Although tournaments are not explicitly covered by WP:CRIN, the general consensus is that tournaments (with few exceptions) without matches first-class, List A, or T20 are not automatically notable. There is nothing to suggest this tournament meets the general notability guideline – the tournament is just another trophy, with any distinguishing features. For an almost identical situation, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League. Although the players within the tournament may be notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The teams involved in the tournament are similarly not notable (perhaps even more so), and I am including them in the nomination, as well as the article on the first edition of the tournament:

All-India Public Sector Sports Promotion Board Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

India Cements Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indian Oil Corporation Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

India Revenue Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indian Tobacco Company Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Madras Rubber Factory Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tata Sports Club Cricket Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009–10 BCCI Corporate Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IgnorantArmies 13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The deletion discussion for an almost identical situation linked above was superceded by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (2nd nomination). And where is the evidence of a consensus that tournaments or teams have to be at the level where individual players would be assumed notable? For example I don't see any questioning of the notability of these tournaments or these teams, nearly all of which are at a lower level than those wanted by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for referring to the Celebrity Cricket League discussion – I didn't realise that had been reopened with a different result. With regard to English club competitions and teams, some of these have been in existence for 50, 100, 150 years, and thus are extraordinarily well-documented, meeting the GNG. Many others don't meet the GNG, in my opinion, and probably ought to be deleted. Thousands of other English club teams exist, and yet don't have Wikipedia articles. I've always understood the gist of WP:CRIN to be that, where matches in tournaments do not hold first-class level, notability needs to be proven (rigorously) on a case-by-case basis. Corporate sports teams are common around the world. CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo routinely cover thousands of minor tournaments. What differentiates this tournament (and the teams in it) from those other teams and tournaments? Does a tournament cross the threshold of notability simply because some of its players are notable? IgnorantArmies 14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the parent article, delete the team articles and merge the season articles. I'm not really convinced either way on this nomination, and was tempted to vote to keep everything or delete everything. But essentially, I think that the league is certainly notable enough to retain an article; a Google search reveals numerous hits, and that is just about all we need to assert notability. However, I think that the season article is certainly not notable enough to have its own article, and that should definitely be merged into the parent article. As to the teams; at the moment each one is merely a line stating that they play in this tournament, followed by a list of players. Given that, I would suggest that these should simply be deleted; there is nothing valuable there to save. The parent article can have a section about the teams, but I don't think listing players is necessary. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think User:Harrias hits the nail on the head! The tournament is to the most part notable, the season and most certainly the teams aren't. So delete the teams, merge content from the season article into the parent one, and keep the main tournament article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:31, 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, Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify (and hopefully prevent another relisting), as nom I would endorse Harrias' suggestion above. IgnorantArmies 14:38, 2 August 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. He's clearly received some level of coverage, but the only real agreement here is that it's somewhere on the borderline of warranting an article. ~ mazca ^talk 09:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Rivero (Performance animator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Rivero has earned some passing mentions in reliable sources, but none have really managed to be significant. I've listed the only ones that come close (the rest mention him for at most two sentences; they're from a LexisNexis document dump I can send to anyone who wants it).

• Sanjith Sidhardhan, Rajinikanth’s packed Kerala schedule, The Times of India (20 April 2012).
• Melbourne Festival II: Puppet Power, Australian Broadcasting Company (27 October 2002).
• Ramon Rivero, NZ On Screen
• Brian Sibley, Peter Jackson: A Film-maker's Journey
  • I haven't found a copy of this book, but a copy of the index on Google Books shows he's mentioned on only one page
• D.D. McNicoll and Emma-Kate Symons, "Strewth" (?), The Australian (4 April 2003)
  • Only section dealing with Rivero: "In The Lord of the Rings movies, the quirky computer-generated character Gollum, below, is obsessed with the Ring, calling it "my precious" as he follows it around Middle Earth. Funny then how life imitates art. The man who created the character of Gollum, lead performance animator Ramon Rivero, yesterday showed some preciousness of his own in Brisbane. The media were invited to cover a presentation he was giving to students at the Queensland University of Technology, where he would "reveal the secrets" behind his animation. But when The Australian and others turned up, Rivero stuck his nose in the air and ordered them to leave. He was gracious enough to offer an interview after his presentation -- on the condition that no mention was to be made of The Lord of the Rings, Gollum or his animation. Oh, and no photos either."
• Dianne Butler and James McCullough, "Don't ring me, and I won't ring you", The Courier-Mail (4 April 2003; [ )
  • Complete text: "APPARENTLY Academy Award-winning animator Ramon Rivero had a "bad experience" with the media one time. Rivero, the genius behind Gollum, the computer-created Lord of the Rings character, pictured, is in Brisbane for a forum at QUT today. Yet when attempts were made to interview Rivero about his dazzling career, he became very agitated and insisted he would not be talking to any media (note to self: Remember that the next time he's flogging a movie) -- in fact, he'd prefer it if his name and Lord of the Rings were not even linked. He was especially put out with the people at QUT for daring to release to the world word of his trip. They got back at him though -- in their press release they called his ugly hobbit Dollum."

—Neil 03:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional sources: (1) Daily Telegraph Perth 14 Feb 2003 "How Gollum came to Life"; (2) MacFan Netherlands August 2005 "Ramon Rivero"; (3) Andy Serkis's: Lord of the Rings Gollum How we made movie magic, p36: "Ramon Explained it was more like controlling or 'driving' a puppet than acting the character, that I had to project life into the Gollum on the screen. Thinking I understood what he meant, I donned the goggles..."--Ramon Rivero (103.9.42.152/Sr7wiki) 12:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reformatted for easier reading—Neil 22:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For widespread, if not detailed, coverage in numerous reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:14, 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, czar · · 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Rivero (aka Sr7wiki) has emailed me copies of the sources he mentioned in his comment above. The Daily Telegraph article is a solid source that's primarily about Rivero, as is the MacFan article (unfortunately, that one's in Dutch, so I wouldn't be able to use it myself). I only saw one page of the book by Serkis, but the mention of Rivero is quite brief. So that leaves us at two solid sources (maybe three if we're generous to the very brief mentions and the sources we haven't seen). For me, that put this topic right on the boundary where we could probably write a three-sentence permastub, but nothing more. So I'm neutral. If we decide to keep it, I'll write up what I can, but given the paucity of sources I'm honestly not that excited about it. —Neil 04:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as with the LexisNexis dump, I'll be happy to email the sources to anybody who wants a look. —Neil —Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His roles seem to be fairly minor, not enough to justify an article - SimonLyall (talk) 04:01, 19 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, Black Kite (talk) 08:59, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Rai Vashishth (R.V.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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