Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 31 May	2 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Mkdw ^talk 01:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NoCGV Ålesund

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

No sources indicating the vessels notability. Searches on Google and Google Books yielded no usable results. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The convention is that such vessels are considered notable. There is at least one publication covering this and sister ships of the Norwegian Coastguard and plenty of other evidence on Google backing up the information in the article, though the best sources may well be print ones. Note that this vessel is also designated KV "Alesund" in Norway. --AJHingston (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which convention are you referring to? The convention that appears to be applicable here is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I am not seeing any evidence of such coverage in the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 06:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable subject as defined by WP:MILUNIT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the page to which you provided a link here, which says "As for any subject on Wikipedia, presumption of notability for a military unit or formation depends wholly on the existence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." How is shipspotting.com a reliable source? The definition at http://www.shipspotting.com/about/terms.php says "Shipspotting.com is an online community for ship photos and related topics. The webpage contains more than 500 000 pictures of vessels and is the worlds largest in its kind. The photo section of Shipspotting provides an online gallery for ship photographers. The overall mission is to create a setting where ship photographers can gain maximum exposure for their work and to provide for a meeting place for ship enthusiasts from all over the world." How is that what Wikipedia considers a reliable source? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warships have a limited presumption of notability as per RightCowLeftCoast's comment.-Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Finavon (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, what exactly is your reason for keeping the article here? -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per RightCowLeftCoast's comment — KV Ålesund is a commissioned vessel of the Norwegian Coast Guard (and not even a small one). Tupsumato (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to this article in the Norwegian Wikipedia, Ålesund handles more missions per year than any other Norwegian Coast Guard or Navy ship. No source on that, though, but assuming we found one, it should make Ålesund notable enough for an article.
  Also, are we running out of space in Wikipedia or what? I admit I might be nudging WP:OSE, but I have to agree with Palmeira below regarding many existing ship articles, quite a large portion of which would fall under WP:MILL or similar. Even big ships rarely make it into the news unless they hit something... Tupsumato (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment reply The U.S. Army Engineer Port Repair ship is a case on point. There were few, with one exception they were of an orphan MC design that happened to be available for an Army requirement of somewhat mixed support with those largely getting modified too late to make it at the time of most need and are pretty much a dead end. I know them pretty well and could "do an article" on each with as much substance as many DANFS paragraph expansions long established here. There is no point in my opinion. The value is to have the context for anyone casually running across one of the weird things in historical texts. That is well served I think by keeping them together in that single article with perhaps a table of the individual ships showing dates and a brief "career" note. That would serve for many military vessels presumed to be notable enough for a stand along piece. Palmeira (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in 2007 edition of Combat Fleets of the World - here (p. 521). Should also be covered in appropriate issues of Jane,s Fighting Ships and similar. There is also likely to be significant coverage of this large fisheries patrol vessel in local Norwegian news sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News-type coverage (in Norwegian) includes assisting storm hit villages, responding to the discovery of a naval mine, rescuing a cargo vessel after engine failure, arresting a British fishing boat suspected of illegal fishing, and rescuing more cargo ships. A reasonable amount of news coverage there.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep among other things the ship is one of the designated oil spill response vessels, Inventory of EU Member States Oil Pollution Response assets and Norwegian Defense Facts and Figures. By the deletion criterion proposed probably 80% of naval ship articles—and possibly some small not very newsworthy towns, cities, provinces and even countries—should be deleted. That said, I do think many of the vessels with "articles" such as this and not much future of expansion should probably be handled in an overall article on the service, type or such other convenient "bucket" that would allow not only the note they exist(ed) but allow for a "main article" if something develops. Palmeira (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nigel Ish. If we want to re-debate the convention of notability of commissioned military vessels, don't believe this is the place for it.Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 7 June 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SGT Hollie Chapman

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

This article has no particular claim to notability in the lede making it difficult to identify notability. Searches of google news and books failed to bring up any sources on this person. Straight google search didn't identify any references either save the IMDB one (which is already doubtful). So, lacking notability and being an unsourced biographical article on a living person, I think it should be deleted GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE. — -dainomite 21:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a run of the mill US soldier to me. I can't seem to find exactly which newspaper the article is referring to, but being chief editor of a newspaper isn't inherently notable. I wouldn't say participating in a documentary about a comedian visiting US troops in Afghanistan is particularly notable either. Without reliable sources this doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Funny ^Pika! 04:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG, dang near an A7 speedy deletion. EricSerge (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject has received mention in a reliable source, however the subject has not received significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, therefore the subject does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. May the subject continue to serve the United States as a Soldier for a good long career, but she does not appear to be notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Intothat darkness 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete privacy invasion against WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Barney the barney barney. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet N or GNG and it is a BLP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tracy Beaker series characters. Mkdw ^talk 01:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Kettle (Tracy Beaker Returns)

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

It seems this is the only character from Tracy Beaker Returns to have her own article whilst the rest direct to List of Tracy Beaker series characters, The list goes in to great detail about all characters so IMO this article's a repeat of what's here –
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:08, 1 June 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list of characters, as seems typical with other characters from this series. If there were more sources or more information to add, you might have an argument to WP:FORK - but no so much when this just duplicates the character list. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:44, 3 June 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, – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Tracy Beaker series characters. Odd that a supporting character has her own Wikipedia page while the titular character doesn't. Not to mention, Lily Kettle on its own is a redirect to her character on List of Tracy Beaker series characters, but if you add the (Tracy Beaker Returns) to it, you get a whole new page. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:10, 7 June 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. If anyone wants a userfied copy I'll be glad to oblige. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu

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

This is promotional material about a non-notable individual. In fact, it's a direct copy of her website, and although we have permission to use it, this encyclopedia is not designed to host PR materials. Predictably, the article is also the only contribution of the article creator. Now, if someone wants to demonstrate notability through multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, wonderful. But we surely don't have that as of now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 23:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with no trace of a CD, hence little likelihood of notability through reviews. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this matter has to be discussed by people who have an interest in classical music and musicians. Promotional material is when you try to sell something. Nicoleta Luca Meițoiu is not playing at weddings, a.s.o., she is only having concerts and piano recitals. What about the pianists Dana Protopopescu and Ioana Maria Lupașcu - are they notable? And also this page is not my only contribution, see my contributions Thank you for understanding, RodicaB (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:EXPERTISE.
- Please see WP:WAX.
- And most important, please see WP:MUSICBIO. If you want the article kept, you have to demonstrate how the subject fits at least one of those criteria. Nothing else really matters. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - It seems unlikely to meet N or GNG, the references on the interwiki were casual mentions and just performances, but the unsourced claims of awards at least push for N, but none seem to be major awards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsinkable 1912

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

Fails WP:N. No search results for <"Unsinkable 1912">, <"Unsinkable 1912" film>, etc. Possibly WP:HOAX. jonkerz ♠talk 17:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a GNG failure. Note that this is the second and only other creation by the creator of the article How to save a life (2011), which is currently showing every indication of being a hoax. Carrite (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No indication anywhere on the internet that such a film exists, so far as I can see. I'm going to drop a HOAX tag on this also, in wake of the content creator's other WP venture, feel free to revert if evidence surfaces that such a film exists. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have notified the content creator, User:Bravo369, of the hoax allegation, emphasized the severity of hoaxing at WP, and invited them to show up here to calm our concerns if this allegation is wrong. The closing administrator is advised that this is potentially a serial hoaxer involved here and that a wielding of the banhammer may be additionally called for. Carrite (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 23:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 23:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NF. Worse, the topic and principals fail WP:V. Film, director, producer, and cast are unverifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a hoax, I can't find anything myself and the cast pages do not make mention of it either. The budget alone is suspicious enough without sourcing. Nothing turns up for Gary Mathews in a director capacity at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to save a life (2011)

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

Fails WP:N. No search results for <"How to save a life" "Nina Smythe">, <"Nina Smythe" film>, etc. Possibly WP:HOAX. jonkerz ♠talk 17:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as apparent hoax; even if it isn't a hoax, there's no evidence of notability, and the article itself is totally unreferenced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No opinion on whether this is a hoax, but it is clear as Stolychnaya that this ostensible indy film doesn't meet the threshold of GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only hit I was able to find for it. I don't recognize the site at all, but it looks like it's based on user submissions. The photo for "Harriet Newlands" was taken from this model site (thank you, drag-and-drop Google image search), so it's likely just another iteration of the same hoax we have here. postdlf (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In light of the above, I have dropped a HOAX tag on the piece. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have notified the content creator, User:Bravo369, of the hoax allegation, emphasized the severity of hoaxing at WP, and invited them to show up here to calm our concerns if this allegation is wrong. The closing administrator is advised that this is potentially a serial hoaxer involved here and that a wielding of the banhammer may be additionally called for. Carrite (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 23:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 23:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not appear to meet Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if it is not a hoax, it is a spectacularly obscure film with no third party coverage to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Worse, the topic and principals fail WP:V. Film, director, producer, and cast are unverifiable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the only 'source' I found. [1] Seems like a hoax. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rees Associates Architects

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

Appears to be a non-notable company. The article has two questionable refs, and Google has returned little else. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search only finds company listings and passing mentions. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 17:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nearest to a claim to notability in the article is being named "one of the 200 fastest-growing firms in the architecture, engineering, and environmental consulting industry" one year. Aside from that I can find passing mentions about them moving into a new office space, but neither these nor the one-of-200 meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet GNG or CORP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Koloid

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable application. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 16:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Supposedly an app for iphone/ipad, yet a direct search of the iTunes app store comes up empty. Other searches only return a video demonstrating the concept. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. The software was released yesterday and there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing the software prior to release; it is at best too soon to have an article about the subject. - Sudo Ghost 06:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party RS sources to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG, while it may be too soon to have good coverage, a prerelease is capable of making GNG for major marketed products, but this is not one. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:30, 7 June 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'S Make It

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No significant coverage by reliable sources. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 16:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 17:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is lots written about this album. I just added references from two books and a review from 1965. It was released nearly 50 years ago and is out of print so current internet reviews are difficult to find but this is a well recognized release by a major jazz artist. I've also alerted WikiProject Jazz of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added a couple of more reviews. J04n(talk page) 13:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable album with articles by named reviewers on Allmusic and Allaboutjazz. Meets WP:NALBUM. AllyD (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jo4n has added significant coverage from numerous sources, & more exists. 86.42.90.239 (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per J04n's additions; album meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 02:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is a significant album by significant artists - added Allmusic star rating and comments from review DISEman (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and pre-internet era, more sources will be in newspapers from the era. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:33, 7 June 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.

Keep -This is a well-noted album. As person says above, we need to also recognize pre-Internet era documentation as well which can get forgotten in these discussions. It also is an exceptional instance of a John Gilmore recording post-1958 outside of the home of the Sun Ra Arkestra.Dogru144 (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 06:12, 2 June 2013 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) deleted page "Cafe Impact" (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) czar · · 07:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cafe Impact"

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All sources are blogs or associated with the subject. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 15:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to no third-party coverage. Fails WP:N jonkerz ♠talk 20:46, 1 June 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. Courcelles 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtube

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

Not notable (article has zero third party article reference). Loginnigol (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 17:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily found literally thousands of results among secondary sources including books, news media, and scholarly academic references. — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post any examples of significant coverage in WP:RS here? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books is the best first place to look for these, not google. (1) Attwood, Feona. Porn.Com: Making Sense of Online Pornography. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. (a respectable academic publisher; GBks shows extensive coverage on p72 and 20 other pages, and the book is in over 300 libraries a/c WorldCat) (2) Substantialdiscussion on several pages] of Hall, Donald E. Reading Sexual. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012. (A well-known writer on literary theory & sexuality) (3)Brief coverage in academic works, for example : Weitzer, Ronald John. Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry. New York: Routledge, 2000.; Freedman, Eric. Transient Images: Personal Media in Public Frameworks. Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University Press, 2011.(4) Brief mention or discussion in non academic books, for example, Levy, Frederick. 15 Minutes of Fame Becoming a Star in the YouTube Revolution. New York, N.Y.: Alpha, 2008. Thompson, Damian. The Fix: How Addiction Is Invading Our Lives and Taking Over Your World. London: Collins, 2013. (5) References to it in numerous works of fiction which anyone can find in G Bks if interested, probably enough to support a Xtube in literature, etc. section. (6) Article in The Advocate 2009, p.250 , not sure of which issue. and undoubtedly elsewhere--I haven't even checked the indexes.

The challenge has bern met--it took me all of 2 minutes with one subset of Google to find them, another 10 to verify and add the refs here, using no specialized knowledge whatsoever.; I suppose the nom will now withdraw the AfD ? DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is what is on the page, not merely what is out there somewhere in cyberspace. The article is over a year old and still has zero amount of third party reference Loginnigol (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the criteria applies to the subject, not to our article. Problems with our article are WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problems if the subject itself it notable. We don't delete an article just because it hasn't been maintained. Stalwart111 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis of my comment above and the sources listed by DGG. If those sources aren't in the article, add them, per WP:BEFORE. Stalwart111 02:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets NOTEability, as noted above. Nom's comment appears to suggest this nom was made erroneously. Loginnigol, would you consider withdrawing the nom? 108.168.95.104 (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per DGG, it seems the subject easily meets WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 06:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, needs to add more independent sources, but they exist and are easily included. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:39, 7 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Japan, Kiev

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

fails WP:ORG. Recent AfDs have shown embassies are not inherently notable. This one is merely a listing of non notable ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 17:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 17:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 17:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lovely building, just like the two on either side. Lovely, but completely non-notable. Stalwart111 03:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a relations related page; it could be expanded from List of diplomatic missions of Japan or another suitable page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The embassy itself is not notable, not in Japan–Ukraine relations or in any other possible context as of yet. Even going through the embassy website here [2] there simply isn't enough content in the press releases to push this in the direction of WP:N. Jun Kayama 02:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan-Slovenia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. All there is to these relations is diplomatic recognition. No agreements, no state visits, no significant trade or migration. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :Any signing of diplomatic relations is notable. I have provided evidence of bilateral trade to the article. The Bhutan -Slovenia diplomatic relation is less than a year old, so trade agreements and state visits are not to start this soon. I disagree with deleting this article and to say that two nations agreeing to start bilateral relations is notable. --KuchenZimjah (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, simply having diplomatic relations does not mean an automatic Wikipedia article. There needs to be significant coverage in third party sources which is lacking here. The level of trade is very low, many companies spend that money in one hour. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 17:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's possible Slovene diplomats can find Bhutan on a map; the reverse is also conceivable. Beyond that, the very notion of such a topic is preposterous. Yes, "relations" allegedly "exist", but as for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not really. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neither of these countries is a major power, and I think that a basic requisite for this sort of thing is that at least one of them should be a major power or if not both should be regional neighbours, or they should have strong historical (colonial) ties. (In the case of the first criterion, I would include the EU as a "major power" because its members tend to act as bloc in trade policy and many other aspects). This relationship however does not meet any of these criteria. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So Bhutan-India relations, Bhutan-China relations, Bhutan-Nepal relations, Bhutan-Bangladesh relations, Bhutan-United States relations, Bhutan-United Kingdom relations, Bhutan-Russia relations, Bhutan-France relations, Bhutan-Germany relations, Bhutan-Japan relations, Bhutan-European Union relations, is not necessarily an exclusive list, but it's this sort of thing. Add Austria-Slovenia relations, Croatia-Slovenia relations, Italy-Slovenia relations, Greece-Slovenia relations Hungary-Slovenia relations, Bosnia-Slovenia relations, Macedonia-Slovenia relations, Germany-Slovenia relations, Slovenia-United Kingdom relations, Slovenia-United States relations, Japan-Slovenia relations, Russia-Slovenia relations, France-Slovenia relations, another pretty good, but not necessarily exhaustive list. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per every other one of these silly articles that have been found and nominated for deletion. Unless there is something notable about the relationship, an article about the relationship shouldn't exist. BTBB above provides a good analysis. Stalwart111 03:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Finnegas (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Biruitorul. While most bilateral relations are (IMHO) notable, this one isn't. $2,000 in annual trade is virtually nothing. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no evidence of notability, and it's hugely unlikely that there would be a notable level of contact between these two small, geographically distant, and culturally dissimilar countries. I did grin at the statement that "Slovenia is a keen exporter of Marble and travertine to the Kingdom of Bhutan with such trade exceeding $8,500 in the 2010 financial trading year" though - $8,500 wouldn't be a measurable proportion of Slovenia's exports! Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userify Remove from mainspace and incubate it until the "relations" get more coverage; while I believe international relations are important, they still need to meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric van den Ing

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

An art dealer who specializes in a particular form of Japanese art, and has written about it some. However, his books don't appear to have made any impact (nor even received any reviews from any major sources). Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Fails WP:WRITER as he is not well-known, widely-cited, or original. The only thing that gave me significant pause was that he is an editor/writer for Andon, the magazine of a notable organization, but I think it is not notable in itself. ^King Jakob _C2 16:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 17:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the works exist and are well-enough received, the author does not meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctuary Lakes Football Club

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE Flat Out let's discuss it 12:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to be a local team in a local competition. Nothing much to indicate any sort of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Low level Australian rules football club. Little coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage in local papers. Hack (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, the individual clubs do not warrant articles and this one is no different. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soleil rouge (2013)

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability requirements at WP:MOVIE. I couldn't find anything in a WP:SET, but it's proving to be difficult to google, as there are approximately five million nail salons and resturants also named "Soleil Rouge". TKK ^{bark !} 11:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apparently the film's producers are spamming films and the director across Wikipedia. This article lacks available reliable sources and fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 13:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 17:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This film is only 18 minutes long and next to nothing appears on the internet about it, either in English or French. It takes a lot to make an 18-minute film notable and the descriptions on the internet provide very little. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:47, 7 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donnell Alexander

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

Article, which appears to be an autobiography, offers no evidence of the notability of this person, and the only source cited is of doubtful reliability. RolandR (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No rationale for deletion given. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I submitted this AfD by accident, and was unable to delete it. I subsequently added a PROD, with reasons, but it was deleted by another editor since this AfD already existed. RolandR (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you add your deletion rationale here, I'll retract the SK vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale added from [3] Theopolisme (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (ec) Biographical (apparently autobiographical) article, in which no evidence has been offered of the notability of this person. The article originally had no sources at all; I tagged it as a BLP:PROD, but the original editor removed this tag, which is not permitted. RolandR (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated by RolandR. Dazedbythebell (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added information and links that support notoriety.Donnyshell1 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Donny, you're a journalist. So, re-write it like it's someone else, not your good self. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. At all. Donnyshell1 (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem. That problem is Wikipedia's guidelines for people. That said, I am doing the best I can to improve the English language Wikipedia article about you.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:CREATIVE as author ("Ghetto Celebrity" is not an influential or well-known work) and as a filmmaker (Does one short - even if it placed in film festivals - make a notable career?). Also fails #2 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

Re: the "Dock Ellis" short - it might possibly help fulfill #1 of WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." The subject being notable enough on this one claim seems somewhat problematic to me. Along with Neille Ilel he interviewed Ellis in 2008 for American Public Media/NPR. The short was then made/drawn/produced by James Blagden for NoMasTV in 2009 from the aired-interview. Alexander & Ilel are credited as "Narration Produced & Directed by...", so their on-screen credits are stating that they were part of the production/pre-production team, but it appears they were not directly responsible for creating the short itself since it was "Drawn & Animated by James Blagden" and "Produced by Christopher Isenberg". It is possible that the 'Dock Ellis' film itself could be notable enough for a Wikipedia article (2million+ YouTube hits, numerous write-ups, won various film festival awards, etc) but I am not convinced that Alexander himself is.

FYI - the Yahoo News/"Dock Ellis"/one-of-best-baseball-movies-of-all-time statement is from a Nov 12, 2009 "Big League Stew" column by David Brown found here. Shearonink (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Shearonink. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G7) - non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pull up (aircraft)

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

Redundant, describes go-around with a fair bit of OR to go with it. Lfdder (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Largely fanciful and mostly unsourced original research and duplication of go-around. - Ahunt (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 11:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - confuses the everyday language "pull up" with the specific "pull up procedure" used in some circumstances. It might have been worth moving to Pull up procedure (aeronautics) or similar, except there is not enough significant material available to warrant an encyclopedic entry. I can't even think of a sensible redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete procedural descriptions are not included in wikipedia under the "Not A How To" policy. Badly named too - implies an aircraft type called a "pull up".GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated above, this duplicates go-around, appears to consist largely of original research, and seems to confuse a an everyday term with a specific procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. The sources I've provided all talks about "pull up" (or "pull-up") as a procedure. It's no copy of "go aroud" I even thought that term was "turn around" (gotten from the TV-series "The worlds most dangerous airports". Nuumber one at that list was concidered as Lakla in Himalaya. In that program a pilot said "a turn around is not possible here") I have just accepted that "go around" is the proper (general) term. But as I do state "pull up" is a procedure that must not be confused with aureal warnings, not even "pull up" warning. The "pull up" procedure is not needed for smaller airplanes. I think some pilots of such has taken offence. I'm sorry for that. Bull the "pull up" procedure is practiced at all PFC's (test for airliner pilots, atleast twice a year). I'm asking for some more time, to references the original reseach parts. I can agree with a better name would be "pull up procedure (aviation)" Boeing720 (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pull up" is a procedure as much a procedure pulling up is. You need to read your own sources. One is about going around, the other 3 are about pulling up when the GPWS sounds, i.e. when you're about to crash into the ground. — Lfdder (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and Ahunt. Someone says "pull up", someone hauls the controls towards his or her stomach and pushes the throttle/s into the panel; the end. Is that a procedure - there are procedures for everything in aviation. Someone says "positive rate", someone says "gear up", someone selects the landing gear up. Someone says "flaps 10", someone moves the flaps selector to the ten-degree setting. Someone says "takeoff power", someone moves the power levers to the appropriate position; and so on.... YSSYguy (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My copy of Jane's Aerospace Dictionary has 15,000+ entries of aviation terminology. There are two entries with the word 'pull up'. The first is 'pull up' the whole definition (which I believe I can copy here as we are not in article space) is Short sudden climb from level flight, normally trading speed for height (usually general aviation or tactical attack). The second instance is 'pull-up point', Geographical point at which aircraft must pull up from lo approach to gain sufficient height to make attack or execute retirement. The first definition could be covered by the Zoom climb article and the second is described at Toss bombing where it is described as the 'Pop-up point' which is a term that I'm more familiar with.

What I am reading in this article is a strange interpretation of the go-around procedure where the pull up part (using text from that article) is ...adopts an appropriate climb attitude and airspeed, simple aircraft handling with no need for a page of description. Referencing sentences from sources that have the words 'pull up' in them doesn't work unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I take the OR criticism to me (and learn from it - however there are lots of far more unsafe articles in Wikipedia). I also admit to have written the article too hasty. And the name of the article was indeed an error. However I strongly object to the accusations of "copying the go-around article". It's like some people just will not understand that the (eledged) "pull up procedure" is a part of certain go arounds, and only applies to large aircraft with two pilots, and at very low radio altitude, runway close. I had never had a look at the "go around" article. I belived that the common term for all aborted approaches was Turn around (This phrase was used by a pilot in the TV-seies "The world's most dangerous airports" ). If you look in the history file, the first version did not contain the phrase "go around" but "turn around". (Change into "go around" was made due to inflict of an other user). I may very well return with a proper sourced "Pull up procedure (aviaiton)" article. Would a flight training guide for any large aircraft be a sufficient source ? Including a chapter of "Pull ups" that do not apply to any warning sound !? Boeing720 (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been made clear, there is no such thing as a specific 'pull up procedure' in aviation. Pulling back on the controls in order to level out or climb is simply something on does in an aircraft in appropriate circumstances. It certainly does not only apply to 'large aircraft with two pilots'. Please do not waste peoples time recreating articles based on your misunderstanding of subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In aviation "turn around" refers to servicing an aircraft with fuel, oil, inspecting it pre-flight, etc after its arrival, in preparation for a departure. When a pilot requests a "quick turn around" from servicing, he is asking for a hasty refuelling, etc, so he can get back in the air quickly. I think you are confusing a bunch of different stuff you saw on TV, none of which was accurate. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Author blanked the article. Can we have this deleted now or do we have to wait the full seven days? — Lfdder (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lfdder. To show that I've actually have taken the OR, and name criticism to heart, I did delete the text of the article myself. (And got an automatic warning for doing so...) However I did never use any material from the "go around" article. And by study the history file, which I didn't delete, (and don't know how to) I used the phrase "turn around" - not "go around" when I first created the article. This was later changed only due to the first criticism at the article's talk page. And I do not "here and now" state that "turn around" was correct. Please try to understand that the mention of "turn around" at this page "here and now" only was an attempt to disprove the wrongfully accusation of that I had copied any text from the "go around" page. I.o.w. - again - I have taken all criticism (except "the copy accusement") to heart, and will learn from it. (The fact that sources of "pull ups" within aviation is difficult to find at internet, does not exclude that I some other time will find good sources of "pull up procedure" elsewhere though. If that will be the case, time will tell. Otherwise I will not return with an improved article. I do also accept that some people don't belive that that the "pull up procedure" exist (or has existed). Fair enough ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see where you were accused of copying the go-around article. The editors stated that this article duplicates it, meaning it is redundant to that article, not that it was an exact copy of it, or sections of it. In the future, you should probably seek advice of the editors at WT:AIR before attempting to re-create this article, as the clear consensus here was going to be a delete anyway. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This debate all looks to be a moot point as the article was CSDed while we we here debating the AFD. I think someone can go ahead and close this AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 3 June 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 Stars Go Dim. Courcelles 17:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love Gone Mad

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, which is basically a link to WP:GNG.

The only independent review of the album that I can see in the refs is the article at Channel One News, and that's really about the band rather than the album.

A google search throws up nothing which might might meet the WP:GNG test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 11:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars Go Dim. Only album released and does not meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 7 June 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 procedural close - wrong venue (non-admin close). Stalwart111 10:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Krzysztof hun

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

This contains testing and vandalism, Therefore, I nominate this for deletion. BlListChecket (talk) 09:13, 1 June 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. Michig (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mickael perret

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

Flat out non notable. I couldnt establish notability in google or even find any film reviews or critiques of this guy's work. I hesitate to BLP-PROD it as it has external links, but they arent exactly credible. TKK ^{bark !} 04:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 13:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I performed a reasonably thorough internet search on Mickael perret and his two films. While many of the entries were in French, they run nicely through translate programs. However, I found next to nothing outside of brief entries and most of these sources are not independent of Perret or his films. In fact, both films are brief - 18 minutes each. This director has not to date done enough to be notable and next to nothing is known of his background. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet N or GNG. The works themselves also do not seem to meet it either, so merging doesn't seem helpful. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:44, 7 June 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. Userfied to User:Cinemasecrets/Scott King (actor) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott King (actor)

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

BLP without reliable sources of apparently non-notable actor Pinkbeast (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in, I think it's delete for two reasons; it's a BLP whose sources are all interviews, IMDB, etc; and as I interpret the notability criteria for actors, if the sources are to be believed, he's nowhere close. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:01, 1 June 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:01, 1 June 2013

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

Delete per being TOO SOON for this individual. Article addressable current issues aside, this actor has received some positive response from the Chattanooga Times. But even when considering that the article is improvable, and his minor awards aside, I still feel he does not quite meet WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:This is my first article and I have worked hard to learn proper format. I am frustrated by the desires to take it down so quickly. I follow film industry personalities particularly in horror filmdom and saw this actor at the South Texas Horror Con. He is not an A or B list actor but he does have a following among the world wide Puppet Master fans, and fans of Charles Band. He also had the lead in a Bio Channel network premier late last year. I am interested in following protocol and want to create other articles on Hollywood actors. This movie received a Wikipedia article with unknown, obscure actors also having pages: Plan 9 from Outer Space The Puppet Master X: Axis Rising film received an article: Puppet Master X: Axis Rising and two of the minor characters have pages. I am confused as to why the lead villain in a famous franchise would not warrant an article as well. User:Cinemasecrets(talk) 19.39, 1 June 2013
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - Creator is justifiably upset, but it doesn't meet GNG yet, the IMDB sources don't count and our policies are strange, this needs to be incubated until sourcing gets upped and the article meets mainspace criteria. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfication to its author is fine with me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pelikan

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

Non-notable footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has played club football at national league level although the NSL was not completely pro. Also represented Australia at youth level. Article needs improvement but should be kept.Simione001 (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Playing at "national level" is irrelevant, per NFOOTBALL you must play in a fully-professional league - which you admit this player has not. Youth international football is also not enough. Giant Snowman 09:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this footballer hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the player fails WP:NFOOTY. When searching for sources I only found links to his profile on different statistics-sites and nothing close to in-depth coverage, so the subject also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly I must lean this way, the Olympic qualification, but no appearance is one thing, but no national professional play is another reason that it doesn't meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:50, 7 June 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. Shimeru 03:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Reed

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

The article is sourced from the subjects website. Koala15 (talk) 04:57, 24 May 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 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale offered is only partly true: 3 of the 8 references are to the subject's website. But even if it was wholly true, the question here is one of whether notability can be demonstrated, not simply the quality of the current references. (That said, strong references are not immediately evident.)AllyD (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the sources, he still does not meet notability guidelines. Koala15 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject keeps s close track of his media mentions at his website, and it does not approach the sourcing standards required here. I was unable to find anything better that had escaped his curation. 86.42.94.218 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 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, J04n(talk page) 01:25, 1 June 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simpel-Fonetik alphabet

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

At first glance the Simpel-Fonetik alphabet looked to me like a worthy subject for Wikipedia, but when I went to search for possible references online I came up almost empty-handed. The only thing I found that wasn't published by the alphabet's creator was this article (snippet view) in the Stanford Alumni magazine. By itself, I don't think that this is enough to satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At present Simpel-Fonetik is just a one-person crusade, and the Wikipedia article written by the creator of Simpel-Fonetik seems to be just an attempt to promote it (WP:SPIP). BabelStone (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete A7. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not A7 - not a person, group, website, animal or event. (I've declined that.) It does count as WP:OR, though, and probably promo as it doesn't seem to be particularly notable. It's a better system than that damn silly ITA thing was, but I can't see it catching on. That's for the future, anyway. In the present, it doesn't seem to have done yet. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, while not a speedy criteria, it certainly doesn't pass N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if anyone's confused about the comments above, they are referring to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. See also the definition of speedy deletion criterion A7, the particular criterion being discussed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Pug6666 01:03, 8 June 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. Shimeru 03:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JSAN

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

No notability in the industry. The main website has not been updated for over 2 years. The functionality described in the article has been popularly captured by npm (software) Voidvector (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unrelated web site for a trademarked device with that name: http://www.baybio.co.jp/english/jsan/jsan.html W Nowicki (talk) 22:43, 28 May 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, J04n(talk page) 01:09, 1 June 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. Deleted by User:Ronhjones under G7 Mkdw ^talk 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ps Vita physical game cartridge list

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

I usually like lists, but I don't think this one is encyclopedic in any sense. Whatever information is here should be in articles on the individual games, or possible the device. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's already a List of PlayStation Vita games article Ive been working on sourcing and cleaning up. If we really need to track this, it can be a new column on that page. Redundant to that, and not really a practical redirect option.... Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete This is notable information that should be kept track of somewhere on Wikipedia. @Sergecross73: Can you please be bold and add the column at List of PlayStation Vita games? I think that this AfD will go more smoothly with the added column. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have added the column, and added a few entries I knew from memory. (I'll do more as I continue my efforts to clean up the list/article.) This now make the article in question that much more redundant, and thus necessary to delete. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've changed my !vote to delete. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:56, 4 June 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Rossiter paramedic

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

Trivial, NOT NEWS applies DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? This is history for NS paramedics and set the tone for many things in our system.( talk ) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. If it is indeed historical, then there should be sources to back that up. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's sad, but getting crushed by a tree is not something that normally gives rise to notability. Nor does the establishment of a memorial scholarship fund in his honour. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your own good, delete per Whpq, WP:MILL, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTNEWS. Actually, many first responders around the world have been killed, over the many years. I was a volunteer EMT, so I feel his family's pain. If we included all such articles, we would be buried in trivia. It's actually more fair to delete all those articles of such ilk. We can't have memorial articles on every person who meets a tragic death; everyone's untimely death is tragic. If you wish to spread the news of the scholarship, there are much better ways to do so. Have you tried facebook, LinkedIn, a website for EMTs, or the Nova Scotia government? For example, the province grants funds for equipment; University of Maine at Fort Kent provides scholarships for students going into EMS even internationally; the Department of Justice provides scholarships to First Canadians; and the N.S. Ombudsman has a great facebook page you should check out. Those are much more effective soapboxes for what you have in mind. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. While there are circumstances where dying can in and of itself make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article who wasn't notable in life, they generally involve murder trials or other circumstances that keep the person's name in the news for an extended period of time — but those aren't present here, and Wikipedia does not exist to memorialize the dead for the sake of memorializing the dead. In addition to Bearian's excellent suggestions above, I'd suggest that if it can be properly sourced, an article about the scholarship would stand a much better chance of passing muster. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per N and ONEEVENT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:03, 7 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buah pukul

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

Notability is in question - the only references are to the groups website. Part of the problem is constant revision of edits to a copyviolation of the groups website. I would cause a deletion due to copyvio but perhaps this debate will clarify things. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found passing mentions of this in lists of martial arts, but no significant coverage. Currently the article has no independent sources. Questionable notability, no significant coverage, and lack of independent sources all contribute to my vote. There's also a COI issue.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I returned it to the clean version with tags intact (again). Was contacted by the author - maybe he understood. This still has problems though.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current version of the article has no sources and this style doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE either. The organization's website lists 3 training locations worldwide. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added a reference from a well known and reliable author of the martial arts. I am starting to lean towards Keep.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, the question isn't whether it exists, it's whether it's notable. I'd call the source you found a passing mention in a book dedicated to listing every martial art in the world. Can you show me some significant, independent coverage or how it meets WP:MANOTE? Papaursa (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm usually all for deleting articles on insignificant martial arts, but this one might need some clarification. Buah pukul is well-known in Malaysia, at least in name. Its fame is, admittedly, mostly by virtue of being the mother of Lian padukan, which is one of Malaysia's four biggest silat schools. But even aside from lian padukan, buah pukul is the origin of various other styles. Among Malaysians who are familiar with silat, the distinct moves of buah pukul are easily recognized and even imitated. You could compare this to Wing Chun among people who are familiar with Chinese martial arts. Speaking of which, buah pukul is actually closely related to Wing Chun. The undeniable similarity between them despite being practiced independently of each other for an entire century is, in my opinion, quite noteworthy from a historical perspective because it clearly points to a common origin. Of course, the article will need to be improved, but I don't think deleting is the solution. Morinae (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still all appears to be heresay. Where are the reliable sources? It may be best if this article is userfied. I'm not a big fan of keeping articles in mainspace hoping that some significant coverage will show up. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be remembered that silat is still relatively obscure outside Southeast Asia. Even the most well-known styles like Perisai Diri and Seni Gayong get very little coverage in writing. And in their countries of origin, books on martial arts are rarely written. Buah pukul was mentioned in some Malay TV programs about martial arts, but that's about it as far as reliable sources go. But with that said, I do see your point and I frankly wouldn't see the article's deletion as a substantial loss. Morinae (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll let the author's comments on the talk page of this discussion speak for themselves--"this art it hasn't been covered until now at all and that's we're attempting to do" and "If we could get another source to back us up online we would, but the point is this hasn't been made public at all in the west since its creation and the only source of notability we have is our own website." I think it's clear there's a COI, a lack of reliable sources, questionable notability, and that this falls under WP:NOT. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or supported claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet V requirements which trump N and GNG for factual recognition, it is largely unsourced and must be addressed, but as a whole, it cannot be. The reference is trivial and doesn't back the material, calling it the Buah Pukul system. Userify is also an option at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the author says there are no other sources, I don't see the point of userfying (is that a word?). Of course it could be recreated if sources become available. Jakejr (talk) 03:27, 8 June 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--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Airlines Flight 555

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

Not notable incident. Planes skid off runways and are written off regularly.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC) ...William 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No idea how binding this is (per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules), but as a hull-loss accident, the article passes the Wikipedia:Aircrash guideline.--FoxyOrange (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As FoxyOrange notes, it passes WP:AIRCRASH, and at least warrants treatment in the articles about the airport and the airline. I'm not sure yet if it has sufficient coverage to warrant its own article per the criteria set forth there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hull loss means it is worthy of being mentioned in a aircraft, airline, or airport article. Standalone reads 'If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it MAY be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports....William 21:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This incident was already included in the articles on the airport and airline. I went and added it to the article on the aircraft. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article satisfies the guidelines at Wikipedia:Aircrash#Aircraft articles. WWGB (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: As there isn't that much information about the accident (yet), could this rather be condensed and merged back into Nepal Airlines, at least for the time being? The infobox and victims' table don't add anything to the article.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete First of all, I'm in agreement with FoxyOrange about the prematurity of this article. But I also see on the aircraft model page that there's a significant Twin Otter crash roughly every other year; very few of these incidents have articles, and compared with those listed, this one is pretty minor. Mangoe (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a condensed summary, in line with the other accidents already listed there, to Nepal Airlines#Incidents and accidents. As Mangoe points out considering the type in question and the severity of the incident this doesn't merit its own article, but seems in line for coverage in the airline article per the accidents already mentioned there (unless, of course, those need trimming...). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per The Bushranger, except that IMO there is already sufficient detail of the accident in the Nepal Airlines article. There have been 260 hull-losses of Twin Otters, including 18 in Nepal alone; and 36 worldwide in the last ten years - which is reflective of the conditions that the type is called upon to operate in. There is no indication that there is anything extraordinary about this crash and I would be surprised if there will be any more coverage after the brief flurry of "it happened" reportage that took place in media that have a vast amount of space to fill these days. YSSYguy (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patcat88 (talk)
Keep -Krish Dulal (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:Aircrash and has attracted worldwide attention. Even here in Australia I knew something about this crash when it happened.Springyboy (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here in Australia, high-speed car chases and wheels-up landings by light aircraft in the USA, are shown on the news - so not exactly a yardstick for notability; and what can be said about the crash that isn't already covered in the airline article? YSSYguy (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small plane, seven injuries, no fatalities, no lasting significance... A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as AIRCRASH states that an event must pass the GNG in order to merit having its own article, and there hasn't been any widespread significant ongoing coverage, then it doesn't actually meet the criteria in the AIRCRASH essay. YSSYguy (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: There are six separate worldwide sources about the incident included in the article, which makes the event more than satisfactorily covered according to our guidelines. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG so it meets Aircrash by extension. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources in the article show that the incident meets the WP:GNG satisfactorily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment again, there has been no widespread significant ongoing coverage, just reports noting that the crash happened. Yesterday and today I have seen about a dozen different reports in different media about a woman in Sydney who was killed while riding her bicycle. There is no question that the coverage of that event concerning an ordinary non-notable citizen confers notability; nor is there for this event. YSSYguy (talk) 00:28, 11 June 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. Few participants, but it's worthwhile noting that the nay-sayers have arguments on their side; the lone yes vote offers only that "references can be improved", without actually doing so. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Rahim

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article is good in length, referenced. Pointless nomination. Passes WP:GNG. Fai zan 07:56, 21 May 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, J04n(talk page) 20:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't pass WP:GNG at all; look at the sources. The first is a webcast interview, not a viable source for establishing notability. The second is one single mention in an article on a film. Ok. The third is a discussion forum. Um, no. The fourth is ZoomInfo, big no. The fifth is vimeo...seriously, what the? The sixth citation is WIKIPEDIA itself. The seventh establishes that he won a single award one time; not enough to establish notability for a person. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, references can be improved, but a notable article should be deleted because it had not been improved. Fai zan 07:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know references can be improved for an article in theory. In this case, I don't think they can; I haven't been able to find any significant coverage, and that's why I think the subject fails the general notability guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:07, 1 June 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 Burzum#Discography. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1992–1997

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

cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable. e.g. not covered in several notable publications Lachlan Foley 09:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Burzum#Discography. Redirecting it to the main article rather than deleting it altogether seems like a better alternative to me. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 25 May 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) 00:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Myxomatosis57. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The box set doesn't meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:21, 7 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu (band)

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

This band appears to fail point #1 of WP:BAND. After several searches, not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 18 May 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, Jamie S93 16:12, 25 May 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) 00:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a good deal of Norwegian coverage, including Nordlys [4][5][6], Oppland Arbeiderblad [7]], Telemarksavisa, briefly [8], Hamar Dagblad [9][10]. 86.42.90.239 (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 86.42, I can't read or translate the source materials, but it seems that this is may meet GNG with some effort to find native language sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:27, 7 June 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. Michig (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renee LaRue

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

Fails PORNBIO, all noms are scene-related. All GNews/GBooks hits are trivial or spurious. NO RS bio content. Possibly speediable as repost of once-deleted article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 May 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) 00:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and PORNBIO, no win of nominated awards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:28, 7 June 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 Britannica International School Shanghai. Redirecting seems to be the most clear and sensible option in this case. The article's only content cites this person as the headmaster of a school, so there is nothing explained in this article that isn't explained in the school article. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Thomas (headmaster)

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

fails WP:BIO. whilst the first source is indepth, there is no significant coverage of this individual . LibStar (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 25 May 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) 00:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britannica International School Shanghai. Principals of secondary schools are not notable per se, even though such schools often have their own WP articles. Agricola44 (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect Seems apt in this case, doesn't meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:29, 7 June 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.