Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 7 May	9 May >

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 no consensus. L Faraone 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails WP:GNG Faizan -Let's talk! 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; apart from the nomination, it's an unsourced list with perennially poor quality. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One need only look at Category:Schools in Hyderabad, India to see that there are apparently plenty of notable schools that could fill a proper list of this scope. Whether it's worth it to rework this list or just blow it up and start over (i.e., delete without prejudice) is another question, but it's unquestionably a valid potential list subject. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: I agree, this list is horribly poor quality; as many such lists tend to degrade to such a state. I'm not much of a fan of lists anyway. Categories can provide lists in a more proper state. This is not well sourced nor watched over, it seems. I'm perhaps saying 'begin again' but with little hope of improvement down the proverbial road. Fylbecatulous talk 13:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination rationale have two points 1) Wikipedia is not directory — please see hundreds of similar articles and 2) notability — it is a list of school, so, notability is not valid point. As postdlf has referred the category, from web too, we can collect sources for individual schools. --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a case of OTHER CRAP. Faizan -Let's talk! 06:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the first point of the nominator was Wikipedia is not a directory, the search link above shows that hundreds of such article exists. So, if WPDIR is applicable, it should be applicable to all, not just a list of Hyderabad, India! If that's so, they should gain consensus from TFC. This single AFD will take nowhere. The second point dealt with notability etc. Frankly, a large number of Indian cities have such lists, I don't understand why this articles has been AFDed! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the accepted to for handling this. Since it is accepted that all secondary schools are notable, and all primary schools should be redirected to the town or district. given the variety here, this will normally be the best place to redirect to. It's an except to the fact that all the entires must be notable , becuase list articles like this are how we handle the unnotable ones. DGG ( talk ) 06:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 03:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Garcia

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

This is a person who has served in some extremely minor political roles such as staff member to a state senator and state governor, as well as a temporary member (not leader or chair, just a member) of the Texas Railroad Commission for a half-year. He was also one of 3 heads of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the state's environmental agency for several years. None of these are elected positions, and to my knowledge appointees to state commissions are not inherently noble, this this is a failure of WP:POLITICIAN. What little sourcing there is is routine and local, the simple reporting of a "so-and-so was appointed to such-and-such" variety, thus a failure of the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN as I said when declining prod. He was not just "one of three heads", but the head as he served as chairman of the TCEQ and previously was the deputy secretary of state. Garcia was not some low-profile bureaucrat and the sourcing is anything but routine or local. Clearly, Tarc has not honored WP:BEFORE if thinks the coverage is all local and routine, though "local" coverage across a state more populous than most countries is nothing to sneeze at either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN is primarily intended to cover elected officials, as noted by part 3, "Just being an elected local official..." which does not even cover all elected positions 100%. If it doesn't 100% cover those elected to a position , then it most certainly does not extend automatically to non-elected officials. As for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Garcia held the chair of a 3-man committee. Again, not in itself a notable position. As for WP:BEFORE, it is not policy or even guideline, merely an essay-like suggestion. I always do brief searches for sources before nominating an article though, so the suggestion that this was nominated without checking is, bluntly, bullshit. There are press releases and scant coverage of jobs this man has taken and jobs this man has left. Nothing more of substance, though TDA is invited to try to find these mythical sources rather than browbeat the deletion discussion. The suggestion that the size of Texas makes its local coverage more notable than local coverage in an other state..or another country for that matter...is almost too laughable to address. "Everything is bigger in Texas" is a product of regional ego, not terribly applicable to the English Wikipedia and how it decides notability. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLTICIAN also explicitly applies to judges, who are often not elected, so your suggestion that him being appointed means that it doesn't apply is mistaken. Indeed, if it applied to only popularly-elected officials this would mean countries where the highest-ranking official in a major subdivision is appointed would be excluded. Still if you want some sources that will make his notability seem more compelling to you then here you go.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is incorrect: the Texas Railroad Commission is a statewide elected body, and a powerful one, "historically one of the most important regulatory bodies in the nation" and "an important actor on the national energy stage".[1]. WP:POLITICIAN does not exclude someone who is appointed to fill a vacancy for this elective position, any more than would be someone appointed to a vacancy for any other elected statewide office. Such an exclusion rule would leave pointless gaps in our coverage, gaps that don't yield any benefit for those who may come here for information about this important elected body. Contrary to the nominator's intemperate edit summary comment when nominating this for AfD[2], the deprodding editor was hardly "obstinate" in exercising xis right to move a questionable prod to full consideration and taking the time to examine the question more carefully is not a "waste [of] 7 days".--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the Railroad COmmission wasn't an elected bosdy, so kindly take your strawman construction elsewhere. This person was appointed to it on an interim basis. The rest of your comment is quite easily dismissed as an WP:ITSUSEFUL hand-wave. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fulfills each part of the genereal notability guidelines. The refs are specifically about him, they are RS. It is an important position. Don't see a reason to delete.Capitalismojo (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Held multiple statewide offices of some prominence, and thus clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Has a marginal claim to GNG on the basis of sources quoted in the article as well. Ray^Talk 15:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Texas Railroad Commission is an important, state-wide, elected postion. It meets the requirments for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 10 May 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.—Kww(talk) 02:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Foundation Centre

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

Non-notable foundation, with wording leaning towards promotional. Only sources referenced are primary. Couldn't find any third party sources. Vaca tion 9 23:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found via Google, and the article looks like either a severe WP:COI problem or an outright copyright violation, using phrases such as "our membership". Huon (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 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 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with the comments regarding the promotional/COI nature of the edit history. These problems can theoretically be remedied, and should not be factors in this discussion, but they do explain why the article exists at all. That said, it fails WP:GNG as to substantial coverage by unrelated parties, and WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. JFHJr (㊟) 21:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advert p b p 23:05, 16 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertas Academica

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

Non-notable journal, fails GNG; whether or not it belongs on the list of "predatory" OA publishers, it doesn't meet our standards of notability. Note also that the PROD a few months ago was removed by a sockpuppet of Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it -- what to do about all the separate articles on all the individual journals, articles created by the same creator? Perhaps there's no alternative to separate AfDs for all of them (some have previously been prodded), but what a pain... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nom probably means "non-notable publisher", not journal :-) I'm hesitating about this one. At least one of their journals is legitimate enough to be included in the Journal Citation Reports with a sizeable impact factor: Evolutionary Bioinformatics. While that article needs some cleanup, it is not even overtly promotional. Analytical Chemistry Insights is in Scopus and we generally take that as meeting WP:NJournals. So are Cancer Informatics, Clinical Medicine: Oncology (that title is incorrect, BTW), and Biomarker Insights. So some journals seem to fail our notability guidelines, whereas others meet it. In general, when a publisher produces several notable journals, we tend to keep the article on the publisher, too. The article on this publisher needs some re-writing to remove some promotional stuff, but there is at least one good source (Poynders blog -a reliable source- listed in the EL section). --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep If they publish even one journal with an impact factor, they're a notable enough publisher. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Mention in Journal Citation reports is enough to show that they have some notability on the academic scene. Ray^Talk 21:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had the list of journals related to this on my to-do list for a while. Other than EB, I don't believe the other journals for which there are pages are notable, and are probably better deleted or redirected somewhere. DGG, is there a particular policy that you base this on? If there's a publisher who's only claim to notability is a single journal, I'm not sure it should have a separate article. a13ean (talk) 22:28, 2 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, Dea db eef 23:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response What else does a publisher do but publish journals? If they publish notable ones, they are notable. The question is if there is only one--and here my argument is the same as with authors of a single notable book, that if they succeed, they are likely to have others become notable also. I see 13 of their journals are now in Scopus, so although I am reluctant to use Scopus alone for the notability of a journal, I think it's an indication of at least partial notability for them. Getting in JCR for a new publisher not linked with a major society is quite an accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randykitty's and DGG's JCR and Scopus finds. --Mark viking (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I'm satisfied that deletion is not appropriate here. (In fact, I've already used it as an example of how 1 admin can make a mistake in areas where they are unfamiliar) DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Bicycles

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

Extremely small and non-notable bicycle manufacturer. Even the ref from "Mountain Bike Hall of Fame" gives him only two sentences. Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERTISING, More like a "second website" then an article. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject of multiple instances of independent published coverage. For instance, HERE is an outstanding, history-driven piece on the website CycleEXIF entitled, "Brodie Bikes: The True Story." And while THIS piece on the site Vancouver Is Awesome may or may not count towards GNG, it is indicative that there is solid source material available for expansion and improvement of the piece. And THIS on the website of Mountain Life Magazine is all about the 2013 Brody product line and includes another short interview that could be mined for content by a serious Wikipedian. This is just scraping the very top of a simple Google search (see WP:BEFORE). Any problems with commercial tone (which I really am not seeing) are easily fixable through the normal editing process. Clearly a flying pass of GNG for this small Canadian bike manufacturing company. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Vancouverite, Brodie has quite a history with North Shore mountain biking, as well as notable manufacturers and athletes at the helm. I was surprised at such a small article, not to mention the lack of an article about Paul Brodie, considering his recent induction into the MTB hall of fame. I agree with Carrite that expansion rather than deletion is the answer for this article. Meat monster (talk) 21:05, 1 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, Dea db eef 23:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question Carrite, would it be more appropriate to have an article on the person than the company? DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the company is the far more likely search term. Carrite (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I worked on the article and improved it some. Needs expansion, but, per Carrite's points, it passes GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:18, 13 May 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 03:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BlackMask

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

non notable rapper, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. sourcing is a mix of pr non reliable sources and claims of notability by association. maybe a redirect may work here but TNT is best to get rid of spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you, it shouuld be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 02:10, 7 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, Courcelles 23:14, 8 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 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eeekster (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:INeverCry under criterion G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Aviation Agency of the Republic of Macedonia

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

Possible advertising or NPOV/COI. I do not think that without a complete rewrite with new citations, that anything of encyclopedic value can be retained. Rarkenin (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that as per this URL, anyone can register, for example, wikipedia.gov.mk. Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can't find the template that compares two pages, but this is likely to be a copyvio of www.caa.gov.mk/50/About_Us.html. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 9 May 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 Francesco Rulli.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Annex

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

With reference to User talk:GB fan, added this page for deletion discussion based on WP:CSD#A7 WP:CSD#G11.

Page was initially listed for speedy, based on A7 and G11, but denied; as to stop a speedy deletion all it takes is a claim of significance. Claim of significance made by User:WestEndKat remains questionable - if sock or not, TBD by wiki security, refer to log: (Film Annex: Revision history) - appears to be inactive user now.

Be that as it may, the point here is that the article in question, is in essence, promotional, and as such a violation of guidelines, rules and policy. The Initial Claim is unsubstantiated, it is promotional and self-promotional by proxy (using notability circumvention)

Here is why:

Quote: "page should not be speedily deleted because... the Women's Annex Channel is very important..."

1) the Women's Annex Channel IS NOT Film Annex. Thus, question remains, why Film Annex should remain as article entry?

2) Notability (or the lack thereof) is verifiable. Looking at the references (1. through 19.) none of them are actual news coverage from economist, bloomberg, or any other independent, or verifiable source. References 20 through 22 are blatantly self-promotional.

3) Section "Notable Channels" refers to an individual, Roya Mahboob, who has a channel on Filmannex, as do others have channels on Youtube, Vimeo, or anywhere else. Section "Philantropy" is not referenced, and thus NOT verified by any other outside independent source. This is questionable practice, at the very least.

4) Fact is: Here is a private entity, i.e. filmannex.com, allowed having an article on WP, which violates basic WP guidelines, rules and WP credibility.

Based on 1)-4) the question arises: is this attempting to circumvent WP:N Notability? If so, the article should be deleted. Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom completed on behalf of author. I have no input (just yet). czar · · 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ due to lack of notability per WP:WEB. In Google Books and Google News, I did not find mention of Film Annex combined with the founder's name except for a MarketWatch article in which he was apparently quoted. Please note that the article uses solely primary sources. Even the Yahoo! News link is just a press release. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MQS below that a redirect is proper. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacking independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:CORP, this topic does not merit a separate article. But as it's existence is verifiable, we can serve the readers by a REDIRECT to its founder Francesco Rulli. Any verifiable content can then be included therein. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A search at Bing clearly brings up recent news from 10,000 Balloons - http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=film+annex&go=&qs=bs&form=QBNT Using Google as a marker for YouTube competitors would fit this Criticism of Google - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google — Preceding unsigned comment added by WestEndKat (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WestEndKat, "10,000 balloons" "film annex" in Bing shows results from websites related to this platform. The top result is this, which has "filmannex" in the URL. Per WP:GNG, we need significant coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per mqs. may 11, 2013 §: 35mexico58 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I updated the Notable Channels content on the Film Annex page and left my comments here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Film_Annex - The page is now consistent with Vimeo's Wiki page. Messin33 (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Roya Mahboob's connection with the site brings up Film Annex in the top results when searching for Roya Mahboob and her early commercial connections with internet classrooms, separate from Women's Annex Project. Recommend wikipedia page be improved, cleaned up, and promotional material removed. Rand49503 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Messin3 (talk · contribs) and Rand49503 (talk · contribs) have only mainly edited Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Global Medical Relief Fund as seen here. Neither of them have adequately responded to this topic's issues with notability. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree with Erik: Neither Messin3 nor Rand49503 nor WestEndKat have added or addressed anything as for coverage from secondary sources to indicate notability. Based on this and looking at the 'Keep' votes, it appears there is either vote stacking, sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) in play here (check & cross-reference history from main page and AfD history), % Thus: Erik, could you plese notify Wiki security about this? Based on this: tendency to Strong Delete than Redirect.Wikipatrolwatch (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to pursue any security measures; the closing admin can assess these comments and recognize these accounts as single-purpose. AfD is not a voting process, the outcome depends on arguments based on policies and guidelines and related evidence. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know internet slang but "meat puppet" sounds like my husband is mad at me :) I met Film Annex and Roya Mahboob through my friends at Global Medical Relief Fund on Staten Island. Maybe supporting the women of Afghanistan is not "Notable" here on Wiki, but it certainly is on Staten Island. I will bow out here after this post but maybe people should look at what is going on in Afghanistan. Positive stories are few and far between in Afghanistan. If that is not "Notable", please explain to Wiki readers what is? WestEndKat (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to Erik's comment, my account was started as part of a project for my BUS 256 class in Business Ethics, as part of a section we are doing on the involvement of businesses in non-profit organizations. Unfortunately, I haven't been the most consistent editor, but my comment from this morning was just trying to say that many non-profit organizations start from business investments (which are motivated by the govt's and that not acknowledging that wouldn't clearly explain the history of the projects mentioned in this page. What I can agree with, is that maybe this article does not meet wikipedia's notability and objectivity guidelines in its current form, but my counter to that is that if you consider the history of Ms. Mahboob's projects, you would have to mention this company, either in an article or a sentence integrated into another article, as part of the process that contributed to this charity being formed.

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

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

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of USS Argus

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

The articles Capture of USS Argus and USS Argus (1803) are both small enough to be merged into one article. The main contents of Capture of USS Argus has already been moved to the USS Argus (1803) article and further needed edits and tweaking have been made. Now that this has been done there seems to be no reason to keep the Capture of USS Argus article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to delete withdrawn by nominator Have copied text from Capture of USS Argus to USS Argus (1803) and will add a 'redirect' to former as soon as an administrator removes the hidden Afd message. Will wait about a week before removing contents. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Completed AfD step 2 on behalf of author. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD is for deletion discussions. If you are proposing a merge, it should be done from the article's talk page, possibly in conjunction with leaving a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. If you are only interested in merging, please consider withdrawing the deletion nomination. czar · · 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 22:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge It is reasonable to bring contested merges here, or merges where a possible alternative might be deletion, but this seems absolutely straightforwartd, and I think you could just have notified, waited a week, and then gone ahead with it. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I think nom is saying that the content has already been merged, so redirecting is the way to go. Ansh666 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I read that uncontroversial and simple merges are okay without a discussion and so went ahead and did so. Since the 'Capture of USS Argus' article has had its contents copied/pasted to a section in the main article I saw no reason to not have it deleted. Do you really think this simple merge/deletion needs to be discussed in all the various forums user:czar posted to? It's pretty straight forward and uncontroversial in nature, as no content or meaning has been added or deleted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to contact anyone, but it's a nice courtesy to anyone who may have input (especially those who worked on the article, from the article's history). Also when merging, it's good to leave a {{copied}} template on the merged talk page, which links back to the old page's edit history so proper attribution is given for the prose. (If the page was outright deleted, that attribution would disappear.) To answer your q, you'd probably be fine withdrawing the nom and completing the merge/redirect yourself. If anyone objects, they'll revert and bring the objection to the talk page. czar · · 18:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination. Have added the 'copied' template to the destination page, btw. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:56, 9 May 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 housekeeping non-admin closure: 22:01, 8 May 2013 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Lullabies for Macy Rose (album) (A9: Music recording by redlinked artist and no indication of importance or significance) czar · · 22:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lullabies for Macy Rose (album)

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

Not notable. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NALBUMS, and the general guideline Wikipedia:Notability. The article was created by the single-purpose account Slb-v1 in August 2008, so it has been around for a while. I added the the {{Notability}} tag on April 10, 2013. With the best will in the world, this album is not notable. HairyWombat 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note to closing admin: Should the article be deleted then Category:Johnny Barker (entertainer) albums will be empty. I am not sure if this category then needs separately to be nominated for deletion. HairyWombat 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9; the artist's page has been deleted and there's no indication of the album's significance. Gong show 21:05, 8 May 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTINHERITED. There is zero evidence of her being notable, which is not inherited. There is also a high risk this will become an attack page on a private person; the focus of the page is on her giving birth at a young age. While I assume that is not the creator's intent, I don't want to feed the trolls, class of 2015. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Marie James

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

Being a notable person's mother doesn't mean she is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Her info can be included in LeBron James —Chris!_c/t 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the only claim of notability that the article makes is invalid per WP:NOTINHERITED. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. She gets a few notability credit points for being someone's mother, but LeBron James isn't himself significant enough to push her over the notability threshold. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited from family members per WP:NOTINHERITED, and I don't see in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. The current lack of substance in the article speaks volumes. It's an interesting story, and she deserves a sentence or two in her son's bio. Remember: even if she satisfied the general notability guidelines, that is not a guarantee that the subject should have a stand-alone article per WP:N. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:24, 8 May 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. L Faraone 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCG Attorney Search

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

BCG Attorney Search appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH in that the multiple cited sources do not offer any significant or substantial coverage of the company. Instead, the coverage is trivial, such that BCG is included in a list of similar organizations, or a webpage/article written by BCG is quoted or linked elsewhere. There is no support for the statements about how and when the firm was founded. There is no description of the company's business focus in the cited sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Researched and added reference (number 2) to how and when firm was founded, as well as focus of the business. Aostler (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a reference to Zoominfo.com. Zoominfo allows users to edit their own entries, so this cannot be considered an independent source. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Binksternet and also find the content overtly promotional. Deb (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; article created by advert only WP:SPA. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons already given by Binksternet, Deb, and Ohnoitsjamie. NOTE: Related articles created by the same user include Hound.com, LawCrossing, and Harrison Barnes (entrepreneur); the last of these is also at AFD. --Orlady (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge all the subsidiaries together. Individually, these headhunter firms are really run of the mill HR firms. There is no need for multiple articles on what are essentially one company, and there is no evidence that any of them are notable except for the size of the totality. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles to merge would be Hound.com and LawCrossing, into this one. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 13 May 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. L Faraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in the Netherlands

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. There is no reason for us to keep this: it is redundant to Postal codes in the Netherlands, where I just added the link to www.postcode.nl, the search engine that generates them immediately. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another list of postal codes. The consensus with other lists of postal codes has been to delete based on WP:NOTDIR. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR, WP:LIST, and TMI. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 13 May 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. L Faraone 03:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkeys (band)

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

Non-notable band - only albums do not meet notability requirements. Sole "award" is not significant enough for notability. This was speedied once, and rightfully so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previous speedy nominator, I see no addition that will make this band notable. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 20:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band and its works have received coverage in multiple reliable sources. Metacritic lists several of these notable magazines/websites [3][4]; the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Gong show 21:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and obviously promotional. Koala15 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone bothering to Google the band would find plenty of coverage. Easily notable enough for an article. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage from reliable sources found through Google, some of which is already in the article. Meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:44, 9 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Chynoweth

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

Article is about a US Army officer without he coverage needed to establish notability. Sourcing in the article consists of the Annual Report published by United States Military Academy, Association of Graduates which would not be an independent source. The other is a link Arlington Cemetery. Whpq (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article effectively makes no assertion of notability at all. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable. Intothat darkness 21:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has received passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, that being said the only significant coverage the subject of this AfD received was regarding the subject's death, written in this book, and the Atlantic Constitution. As such this biography falls under WP:BIO1E, and as the death did not receive continued coverage the event does not appear to be notable per WP:EVENT, and thus WP:NOTMEMORIAL appears to be relevant in this case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at the paywalled Atlanta Constitution article that is available in the preview, the headline "ARMY OFFICER IN LAST FIGHT", and the sub-headline "Death Takes Maj. Edward Chynoweth. Operation Fails to Give Him Relief and End Comes After Short Illness" match the second block of the Arlington cemetery page, although the "-Interment in Marietta or in His Native City." from the Constitution doesn't appear in the Arlington page. Byline dates are the same but the wordcount in the Constitution would seem to be a little bit larger. -- Whpq (talk) 12:07, 10 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatswords

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

Non-notable portion of a game. This article consists of only in-universe description of a fictional portion of a game universe with a single reference to a primary source --Craw-daddy | T | 20:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps the odd sentence could be used in another article, but definitely no need for this to be a standalone article. 1292simon (talk) 12:55, 2 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) 18:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or alternatively merge into another appropriate article. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Classification of swords#Great sword. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 8 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sorribes Tormo

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

Contested PROD: my original concern was that Sorribes Tormo does not pass the tennis notability guidelines. She has not been ranked in the top-200, she is not a top-3 junior player, she has no senior Grand Slam or Fed Cup appearances, and she has only played in the qualifying draw of the 2013 Mutua Madrid Open, i.e. no main draw WTA tour appearances either. In addition to this, Sorribes Tormo has never won a $50,000 ITF tournament or better. If requested, I wouldn't have a problem with the article being userfied and later being moved back into article space at such a time if/when the player in question does become notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no notability with this player. This really should not have been un-proded but the editor had the right to do so. When these articles are created there needs to be a link somewhere that shows they meet the notability criteria. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. (insufficient notability according to project guidelines).--Wolbo (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Introduction to Finality

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

Television episode with no notability. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Final episode of season four of a TV series that has 73 out of its 84 episodes with their own articles. - RandomEcho (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What if most of those 73 were turned into redirects to List of Community episodes? Most of them are just bare frameworks to present the plot to the reader, so what importance does that have for the encyclopedia? None. A bunch of the episode articles violate WP:TVPLOT by having too much text in the plot section, for instance there is "The Politics of Human Sexuality" which is almost entirely plot, more than 900 words even though TVPLOT allows a maximum of 500. "Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas" violates TVPLOT with a plot section word count of almost 700, but at least that article has context and healthy sections about production and reception—it would be one of the few that are not redirected to the list of episodes. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like you should fix those other articles. Anyways, as has been stated, this is the final episode of the series; it's obviously notable, particularly when most other episodes have their own page. Naapple (Talk) 03:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to concerns about the synopsis length, I have edited it down to 498 words which is in accordance to WP:TVPLOT. That said, issues with other articles are exactly that. Issues with other articles and not issues with this article. Mpen320. Also, as the season finale (I just read the series has been renewed) it is notable, but even by itself it is notable. Every episode of Glee has its own entry.

Keep Don't like the other articles? Stop being a lazy complainer and fix them! Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:24, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Keep The article is young, and might get better. The article's subject is an episode that is significant for being the last in the first season of post-Harmon production, and likely in the show's run. If things change in a year, perhaps I will change my position, but deletion so soon is premature. Mang (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episodes of Community are regularly discussed in reliable sources (critically), so even before airing it would have been reasonable to create. Now aired, there's at least 3 reviews in it, likely more given time. ( --MASEM (t) 14:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is at least the season finale and possibly will be the series finale. Out of all the episodes that have articles, why is this the one you want to delete?? --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While yes the article could use improvement in how it is written, we Wikipedians should just improve the article. It is premature to dismiss this article as insignificant as it is a season finale and up until recently, could have been the series finale. Also, it already has three reviews in it and sections on continuity and cultural references less than 48 hours after the episode aired. -Mpen320 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely needs improving, but quality of current content shouldn't be an issue in deciding deletion.IrishStephen (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW and the fact that there are enough critical sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 14 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Kenneth

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG to me, firm might be notable but I don't think the founder is. Sasquatch t|c 17:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : nothing significant about the person.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Not notable person.Jussychoulex (talk) 18:52, 12 May 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. L Faraone 03:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Charles Vigilante

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

No real indications of notability here. A somewhat highly placed executive at CNN, who wrote a personal reflection on the effects of Hurricane Sandy. That's about all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:12, 2 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, czar · · 17:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree; I checked the usual search engines and there's simply nothing verifiable we can say about him that isn't already in the two-sentence article. —Neil 18:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Affirmed. Shii (tock) 23:48, 12 May 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 as follows:

Keep Supernova (The Echoing Green album)
Keep The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
Redirect The Story of Our Lives to The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
Redirect Fall Awake to The Winter of Our Discontent (album)
Redirect Hope Springs Eternal (album) to The Echoing Green (band)

The result here is in line with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars comments. There were no wishes for outright deletion except from the nominator, and the consensus was to keep two of the albums. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Our Lives

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, WP:GNG, and all related notability guidelines. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same thing just different albums/songs:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to The Echoing Green (band). All contain encyclopedic information that passes WP:V. --Michig (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on Supernova and The Winter of Our Discontent. The Discontent article includes links to Phantom Tollbooth reviews, and here's one from Christianity Today: [5]. I also found a review of Supernova at allmusic [6] to go with the Phantom Tollbooth review link in that article. The other nominated album (as opposed to single or EP) is Hope Springs Eternal which is the oldest of the bunch, so it is harder to find reviews online -- Foetusized (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:00, 1 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, czar · · 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Supernova (The Echoing Green album) and The Winter of Our Discontent (album) per Foetusized; Redirect The Story of Our Lives and Fall Awake to The Winter of Our Discontent (album) as tracks from that album; Redirect Hope Springs Eternal (album) to The Echoing Green (band) as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:15, 17 May 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic jihad

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

No real sources for this (Sookhdeo is a polemicist, not a scholar), article created by blocked sock of SPA account. Topic appears non-notable, absent sources that discuss it (WP:GNG/WP:NOR), but at best, even if it is actually notable, it would benefit from a ground-up creation by someone who knows how to edit WP (WP:TNT). A less formal way of saying all of this would be that this is laughable POV rubbish the inclusion of which makes Wikipedia look foolish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is an attack on Islamic financial initiatives. Any published sources discussing such initiatives as jihad should be in other articles, not this one. This title should not even be a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not neutral. Appears to be an attack page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 16:48, May 8, 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Duplicates content at Islamic banking in a remarkably biased fashion. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:SOAP. Unnecessarily duplicative. Shariah-compliant investing is the same as Islamic banking. Will change the redirect. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also is an article at Sharia investments, which may have to be merged as well. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from attakc page issues, it's just original research of one individual who isn't notable in the field themself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 14 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Williams

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

Poorly sourced BLP, fails WP:GNG with no dedicated coverage by any sources larger than local papers. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huntington is one of the largest cities in West Virginia, so its mayor has ex officio a good shot at notability. I've cleaned up the page and added a number of additional references, mainly to articles from The Herald-Dispatch, The Charleston Gazette, and West Virginia Public Broadcasting—yes, these are local media, but they're still reliable, independent sources who've each written multiple articles on Williams. —Neil 22:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up any copyright issues. The subject passes WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1 as a former state legislator (member of the WV House of Delegates). • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the article and removed all the suspect language as part of my cleanup, so I've removed the copyvio tag. —Neil 00:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, and thus is notable per GNG and ANYBIO. Furthermore, the subject is a former elected member of a sub-national legislative body and thus considered presumed notable per POLITICIAN as stated by Gene93k.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:06, 12 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Amores

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

PROD removed by 77.225.45.232 (talk · contribs) with no explanation given. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the subject has not "appeared... in a fully professional league" and WP:GNG as the article shows no evidence of the subject receiving "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Mattythewhite (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NPSORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails all relevant guidelines. Article is also almost certainly an autobiography, not that that's a reason for deletion, just worth noting..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:58, 10 May 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 18:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prices of elements and their compounds

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

This page in completely unmanageable. The prices of elements and compounds can vary considerably in very short time spans making the information contained here completely unreliable unless it is updated very often such as weekly. Most of the article content is currently way out of date and therefore highly inaccurate. Prices also vary considerably depending on source, purity, quantity and many other market factors. How could we possibly list all possible and/or relevant product price variations? By including chemical compounds, this list is also almost unlimited in scope - each element can have literally hundreds of different compounds. There is simply no practical way to present this kind of fluid, variable, time-sensitive information as an encyclopedia article. This page is also a magnet for advertisers - for example, it includes dozens of links to metal-pages.com which has been spammed across multiple Wikipedia articles. If there is a need for the inclusion in Wikipedia of the price of specific element or chemical compounds, it would be best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead. ChemNerd (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very strange and inconsistent article having prices taken from various times in the past. Not fixable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wildly, madly unworkable. WP:INDISCRIMINATE too. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is both notable and interesting. The fact taht it is poorly maintained is not a reason for deletion. We don't delete stubs. Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It gives an order of magnitude estimate of prices. An interesting topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep--the topic is notable and interesting. Really one of the better topics for a list (even though the treatment is not there yet). Yes, the article is not well organized or maintained, but so is most of Wikipedia. It has many RSes and with enough effort could be made into a masterpiece. The table includes the date, source, and caveats associated with the pricing. I don't expect us to track the every day gyrations of some commodity prices, but the real value is in the relative magnitudes as Xxanthippe says and the compilation of price estimates for non-traded elements from many disparate sources. Improvements could be to make the table sortable, and retitle to be prices of the elements (the complaint about that is a tickytack one...read the article and it is clear that there is no intention to track all compound prices, just that some elements are only priced as within the compound.) TCO (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly organised and formatted but with much potential. Sandbh (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TCO and Sandbh. Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps mentioning what the prices were all at one point in time would be more useful. A line chart listing information about them all year by year would be very useful also. Its encyclopedic to show what elements are worth over time, all together so you can compare them. Dream Focus 00:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An odd case and maybe it could be salvaged, but ultimately I agree with ChemNerd that, "If there is a need for the inclusion in Wikipedia of the price of specific element or chemical compounds, it would be best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead." This article does appear unworkable. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it would be "best handled at the corresponding element/compound article instead." There is value in having the comparative information available in one place rather than scattered around. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, but definitely needs cleanup. I don't see the problem with fluctuating prices as long as we have "as of" statements and it's a pretty common thing to list. That said, we ought make the list a lot more complete and use prices of pure elements not compounds wherever possible. ^King Jakob _C2 20:42, 18 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Sun (band)

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to merit an article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Binksternet (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Credible coverage has already been verified under amends of federal rights laws under 4th amends. Verification lies within hyperlinks to getty images, etc., referring to the credible media coverage of said band members as established under vast national media outlet coverage. Therefore this page, "Dog Sun (band) is to remain upon the web without subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicarticles (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. Safiel (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Credible coverage is protected for this page "Dog Sun (band)" under wikipedia guidelines section: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] Further more this evidence supports inclusion of "Dog Sun (band)" to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historicarticles (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Image does not fulfill general notoriety. In my reading Historicarticles is violating WP:NLT, to boot.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Also contains a lot of unreferenced information about living persons. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with storm and fire: Completely aside from that the bulk of this article is turgid, barely comprehensible debris, Historicarticles would do well to reread the GNG (we'll ignore his first comment, mercifully), which holds, as most of us know, that reliable sources must discuss the subject in "significant detail." Mere listings of the date and venue of a band's next performance explicitly do not qualify. Ravenswing 07:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for significant coverage of this band but found none. The cited sources, a mention in a news photo caption and an announcement of a free performance in a small music lounge, don't support notability. Fails notability completely. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:18, 12 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cluedo characters

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

Fails WP:GNG. The characters featured in a board game is not a notable topic. These are not developed characters with backgrounds or involved in plot lines as you would see in a book. Any characters in spin-off/variations are discussed within those specific articles (e.g., Cluedo Master Detective, Clue Jr.: Case of the Missing Pet). AldezD (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was quite a stir in the press recently when it was announced that the cast of characters was to be changed. For example, Colonel Mustard is to become Jack Mustard, football pundit — bah! See Who killed Cluedo's Col Mustard?, for example. The topic is therefore quite notable and our focus should be updating the article to include this new information. You may also recall a similar fuss when the cast of pieces for Monopoly was being updated. This indicates that such topics are more notable than the nomination supposes. What next, I wonder? Will Scrabble introduce tiles with diacritics...? Warden (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That news article is 5 years old—not recent. It does not provide criteria that shows Col. Mustard or the rest of the playing pieces from a board game meet WP:N. Although somewhat unrelated to this discussion, there is no separate article for Monopoly tokens. They are described at an appropriate level in Monopoly (game)#Tokens. AldezD (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. The age of the news article is irrelevant.--Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was directed more toward the fact that the article does not provide criteria that shows Col. Mustard or the rest of the playing pieces from a board game meet WP:N. AldezD (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there are probably some sources to be had, per the Colonel above. I also think that a 60k byte article is a legitimate fork/split where merging it back to Cluedo#Suspects would be impractical, even if consistent with the Monopoly (game)#Tokens example above. But please let's come to a consensus here - taking this to DRV will be painful if we first have to work out who deleted the Cluedo characters! Stalwart111 23:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is simply an unsupported assertion. In fact, the characters in a board game are also those in a major motion picture. The nominator has not documented any effort to find sources, but has mistakenly implied that a five-year-old article is irrelevant, contra WP:NTEMP. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The motion picture is the only aspect of Cludeo/Clue in which there is any characterization of the playing pieces. All other aspects of this article simply compare differences about playing pieces from a board game. One or two lines on a playing card for each pawn is not a characterization. The article also includes intricate detail about two characters from the film who each have one line of dialogue and only appear as corpses later in the film. That information -- at best -- should be merged into Clue (film) instead of appearing in a separate article. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comparison of characters between different versions of the game is interesting, and the crossover of the characters into other media (e.g. the motion picture) provides sufficient depth for an article. --Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT/"it's interesting" is not a valid argument for inclusion. These are not crossover characters. AldezD (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is overlong and overdetailed but it's still a legitimate topic with coverage in reliable sources[7][8][9][10][11]. In addition it has legitimacy as a break-out from the main article on the game. The example of Monopoly tokens isn't very relevant because they're just objects and don't have any backstory or personality in films/games/etc, there's far fewer, they're changed less often, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update By coincidence, I yesterday noticed a version of Cluedo which uses Sherlock characters in place of the traditional ones. The plot thickens... Warden (talk) 09:15, 11 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday (novel)

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

I was willing to improve the article and I did add an infobox to it. I removed three links provided as citations, which were by no means reliable sources. They were just links to websites that allow one to create one's own ebooks. Then, I googled the novel's the author's name to see if I could find any reliable sources at all, but I couldn't. Everything I could find was from the same website. No coverage in news publications or anything at all. Clearly a non-notable novel. It may be worth noting that the author does not have a Wikipedia article on him either. The ISBN code doesn't seem a valid one either. smtchahal^(talk) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If S A David wants to be a successful novelist, he/she should probably think about choosing a pseudonym and book titles that are easier to Google for. But no matter what I try, I can't find anything that suggests the slightest notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book is not even in Worldcat. One earlier self-published novel is -- with one single library holding. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This book just isn't notable at this point in time. I always maintain that it's admirable that someone can complete a book, but that doesn't mean that it passes our strict notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:49, 9 May 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 Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) smtchahal^(talk) 14:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film Creation Process

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

Essay about making a movie without references. Ghorpaapi (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Ignatz mice•talk 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been redirected to Filmmaking. smtchahal^(talk) 14:37, 8 May 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. L Faraone 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Neil Oatway

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

Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions. Closest it comes is Ojai Bums (Short Film) and The Adventures of Galgameth which are part of the walled garden. Sourced only by Ojai Studio Artists. I found anothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another look says the garden is centred on Devin Neil Oatway and not Ojai Studio Artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please help improve this article. It is of interest to enough people to be included in wikipedia. What is this purge all about? Gudavagling (talk)
It is of interest to the creator of the article (you), and others in your group, but a WP:WALLEDGARDEN isn't something that should be kept if notability isn't established, particularly after 8 years. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: yeah none of those sources meet allowance criteria. Plus the aforementioned SPA and the fact that the page creator is at UAA and has had their user deleted as G11. Now I know that may be a NPA breacher but at this point when we're clearing up damage maybe IAR is a playable element. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 21:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe an article should stand or fall on its own merits regardless of who created it. That's apparently a minority view around here, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel sad that the uninformed are lured into contributing inappropriate content to Wikipedia. This article was created in 2005 and somehow given a Start-Class rating. During this almost 8 year period, about 240 edits were made, mostly in good faith. I think that an AfD debate is a poor place to educate editors. Wikipedia should be accurate, while also kind to its contributors. I regret this incident. Wikfr (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. But now we have to clean it up. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing where this person meets WP:NACTOR criteria. I'm also disturbed by the article's apparently false claims that he "starred" in several films. The roles aren't significant roles as required by WP:NACTOR. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 14 May 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 per G12. Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) deleted the page on 14:33, May 14, 2013 (UTC) but did not close this deletion discussion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ojai Studio Artists

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

Part of a walled garden built by a mostly WP:SPA around Ojai Studio Artists. Promotional piece lacking notability. Lacks coverage In independent reliable sources. Sourced only by itself. I found a bunch of very local passing mentions, nothing good enough for WP:N duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another look says the garden is centred on Devin Neil Oatway and not Ojai Studio Artists. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems purely promotional to me. Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please give us time to write this article and provide correct citations. We have articles in LA Times, Ventura County Star, Ojai Valley News, Ojai Quarterly and more, dating back to the 80's. Beatrice Wood was an honorary member before she passed away. This is a real thing. Please don't dismiss something simply because you yourself have no interest in it. You are doing a disservice to the wikipedia community as well as the Ojai and California Communities.Gudavagling (talk)

Note: Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:13, 14 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor W. Hwang

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

Lacks notability. His book is not notable for WP:AUTHOR. His fellowships are not acedemic for WP:PROF. Lacks coverage about Hwang instead of by Hwang. Closest is the Forbes article by Frederick E. Allen (ref 7) but Hwang is a Forbes contributor so this lacks independence. Prod removed because CEOs and co-founders are magicly notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Could not find substantive coverage as subject.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can verify the book, but it is in a total of 22 libraries, a/c worldcat. Considering that the author somehow managed to get a promotional interview in Forbes, that paucity of holdings clearly shows the utter insignificance. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability. AuthorAuthor (talk) 14:38, 10 May 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. L Faraone 03:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xhibit Corp

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

Lacks notability. Promotional piece sourced by a bunch of primary sources, blogs and press releases. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small company ($6 million) with no significant products. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 9 May 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. (non-admin closure) Dea db eef 06:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silverleaf Resorts

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

Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:CORPDEPTH. Appears to have been written solely to promote the company.--File Éireann 09:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [[12]]. Article clearly meets all seven criteria stated; article also has been edited repeatedly to conform to WP standards and practices -- under the guidance of several notable WP editors (article history will show efforts made to comply with and address all objections in good faith, to ultimate satisfaction of objectors). Completely willing and able to make any changes necessary here, too -- but this is a noteworthy, well-cited, multi-million dollar, previously publicly traded company. It exceeds the notewothiness threshold. It is written in a neutral manner, with considerable third-party citations. Please reconsider - thank you to all in this thread for their time, effort and consideration. Johnsaavn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.151.208 (talk) 17:51, 29 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards, but the company clearly meets WP:ORG. --Crunch (talk) 00:57, 3 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) 11:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, notwithstanding the above claim that "article also has been edited repeatedly to conform to WP standards and practices -- under the guidance of several notable WP editors (article history will show efforts made to comply with and address all objections in good faith, to ultimate satisfaction of objectors)", there is [no talk page] supporting this. Second, the person objecting is the creator and, for practical purposes, only active editor of the article (and otherwise largely involved with other Cerberus and related articles...). This is definitely in violation of WP:COI. As for the article, it does read WP:SPAMmy in part. And it is certainly not balanced. The awards are from an affiliation organization of which the article's topic is a business partner ([see also this]). I.e., more WP:COI. The subject may yet get notoriety with accusations such as [this], [this] and [this] - in time. Nothing else noteworthy on G or GN. Does not meet WP:COMPANY.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Burn. Delete. When independent people look at corporate spam The results can be obvious. Wikipedi9a is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to be very deletionist about corporate spam, --I come here after deleting my usual dozen for the day -- but this is not an example of it. It's a straight descriptio of a company that is large enough to be notable. I am very ready to see promotionalism, but i don't see it here. A enthusiastic description of their properties would be promotional, but this is a straight financially oriented company history of the plainest sort.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 May 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. L Faraone 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Sales

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I declined an A7 CSD on this due to the BSFA award, ~~but really, fan awards such as this aren't much of an indicator of notability~~.Haven't found any sources beyond his own website, sales sites and passing mentions here and there; nothing sufficient for a pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the BSFA Award is no more a "fan award" than the Hugo Award is. After the Arthur C Clarke Award, it is the most notable genre fiction award in the UK, and has been awarded to novels since 1970 and short fiction since 1980.Tanzeelat (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just quoting the BSFA's website. They seem to be at pains to point out that it's a fan award, which effectively, it is - winners are voted for by the BSFA's membership, rather than judged by a panel like the ACCAs. Nothing wrong it that, but technically it does make the BSFA a fan award - as, incidentally, is the Hugo. Yunshui 雲‍水 21:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with this argument is that we're not given a good reason as to why a fan award isn't an indicator of notability. The Hugo is a fan award. It's also considered the most influentual award in the field of written American science fiction, so why wouldn't it be an indicator of notability? The field of British science fiction takes the BSFA awards seriously. I would argue that, in itself, is a reason for us to do the same. There is no inherent disqualification if an award is a fan award, what matters is the role it plays. /82.199.181.2 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point, and on reassessing, I'm inclined to agree. I'll strike that from the rationale. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think the discussion would benefit from another focus: not "do we want to?", as it has been so far (I think we do want to) but "could we?", as in "do we actually have enough good sources to write this article?". Not as sure about that, but happily proved wrong. /82.199.181.2 (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The criterion says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"--nothing about who gives that award or honor. The BSFA Award is well-known and significant in the U.S. and U.K. speculative fiction publishing and fan communities. rosefox (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checking his isfdb listing, I see he has a reasonable body of work, some of which seems to have been reviewed by sfsignal, Strange Horizons, and Locus, among others, so I'd say he meets the notability guidelines, although the article really could use being filled out a bit more. He's quite a prolific reviewer, I see Geoffrey.landis (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If winning the BSFA doesn't make you a notable science fiction author, you can't become a notable science fiction author. htom (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haifu Hospital

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

Copy paste from the website, flashy language, no external references.

proposal Delete or/and rewrite. Ghorpaapi (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:COPYVIO?Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio. I've tagged the material substantially taken from the web site. I expect the hospital could be sourced but a barely reworded copy of the hospital web site is not an appropriate base for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 9 May 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. L Faraone 04:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torry Lewis

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

Person "notable" only as an unelected candidate for political office, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN. Also a high prospect of WP:COI (see creator's username). He'll most likely qualify for an article if he wins, given Atlanta's status as a major city whose city council would count as sufficiently notable, but merely being a candidate for office is not enough to qualify someone for an article on here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thus far unsuccessful candidate for local offices. Ray^Talk 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- great nom. Could an admin keep the article on their watchlist though in case he does win to undelete?, since I agree with Bearcat that being on the city council of a city the size of Atlanta is notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an unelected politician he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and he also seems far from WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia state elections, 2006#Georgia House of Representatives elections. The subject has received some slightly more than passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but none that I would consider significant coverage and thus it can be reasonably argued that the subject is not notable per GNG and ANYBIO. That being said, the subject of this AfD has ran for a statewide office and lost, and as such POLOUTCOMES apply and as such a redirect to that election is the common practice rather than outright deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:57, 12 May 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 Kyiv Polytechnic Institute. If this discussion hadn't already been relisted twice, I would probably be relisting this instead of closing it. Having said that, there seems to be a general agreement that the subject isn't notable per Wikipedia standards, but a reluctance to delete outright. Given this, I think a merge is the best option here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summer School AACIMP

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

Promotional article about a summer school with little evidence of notability. It was unwisely accepted from AfC , because it is primarily a string of quotations from non-independent sources praising the work of the school. I've notified the ed. who accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looks notable as per my knowledge of local context. See, exact science or math academic events in Ukraine, as such, won't receive any coverage that is demonstrably notable for Wikipedia. Any of such events. It's not a sphere of either public interest or real competition between universities, or interest form global academic community. See , no one is there to cover and publicize its countrywide significance( I'm afraid this summer school is only one mathematical in Ukraine, no matter how (under)publicized it is. Anyway, the article needs serious wikification and refimproving. Thanks, Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:05, 6 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, czar · · 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional. and full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorporate useful info from article into Kyiv Polytechnic Institute and then Redirect per Ukrained2012. Basically everything under the lead seems to not to belong in Wikipedia per WP:NOTEVERYTHING; because without that info you end up with a very short stub it would be better to make a new Summer School AACIMP-chapter in Kyiv Polytechnic Institute and make this link a Redirect. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:08, 13 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 04:02, 16 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Attitude Era footage removal

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

Essay-like investigative journalistic piece. Clear violation of WP:NOT -LM2000 (talk) 03:01, 8 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 8. Snotbot t • c » 03:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oversourced and overlong article which comes down to "WWE asserted their copyrights and asked for their videos to be pulled down from YouTube", along with stopping them from becoming obnoxious political cannon fodder. That, and many of the sources are either blogs or fansites, it's poorly sourced and most of the text is quotes that should not be that long. Nate • (chatter) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should be merged as a section in the main WWE article in a much condensed form.--Robustdsouza (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge, bar for the "WWE asserted their copyrights and asked for their videos to be pulled down from YouTube" that the user above pointed out? The stuff about the senate campaign is better suited to articles relating to that campaign... there's already a bit about Youtube controversies on her campaign article here. Seems to me that this article is so bloated that everything in it pertaining to WWE, and not the Linda senate campaign, can be boiled down to a few sentences. I wouldn't be opposed to reliably sourced content related to this issue being briefly mentioned on the WWE article but merging this bloated poorly sourced article into that one, as a whole (or only slightly condensed), would be a disaster. Scratch that, I would most likely be opposed to that as well. I'm not entirely sure how those boiled down sentences could improve the current WWE article.LM2000 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes I agree the article in too big and it is tough to cut it down. So i cast my vote in favour of deletion.--Robustdsouza (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete companies can and do make youtube and other sites take down copyrighted material all the time, it's not at all a big deal. If anyone can reliably source the allegations that it has anything to do with whitewashing Linda McMahon, then that criticism belongs in her article, not a seperate one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly article with trivial subject matter. Feedback ^☎ 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Starblind. If a substantial case for this can be made it should be included in Linda's article rather than having its own. — Richard BB 12:20, 15 May 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 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season. Courcelles 03:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012-2013 Chicago Bulls

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

Unencyclopedic summary of primary sources. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also, inevitably, going to be a duplicate of the 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season article. » scoops “5x5„ 02:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Scoops, article does not improve upon the topic. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the established article, 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season. There's some reasonably useful content here. It's certainly not bad enough to warrant a speedy delete. With a bit of polishing, it could fit in the season article we already have. Zagalejo^^^ 03:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge then? Ha ha. Agree it should go but if there is anything worth keeping it should be transferred over to 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season. Stalwart111 05:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2012–13 Chicago Bulls season as a fork. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 8 May 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tsutomu Shimomura

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

I believe this is a case of WP:ONEVENT. take away the event and he is not notable. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I can find enough, I'm leaning towards creating an entry for the book and suggesting a redirect there. There is already an entry for the movie based on the book, so if all else fails then it can redirect there or to Kevin_Mitnick#Arrest.2C_conviction.2C_and_incarceration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject was already a recognised expert before clashing with Mitnick. In any case, the idea that we should delete anything is absurd because the subject was a major part of the Mitnick takedown and so we would preserve on that account alone. Warden (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event was significant and the topic of a lot of study (including multiple books and a film), and the subject of this biography played a key role in that event. Thus, a careful reading of WP:BLP1E does not call for deletion. Ray^Talk 19:41, 8 May 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) 07:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart, Improve Your Health

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

Despair nomination. This is such an un-encyclopedic collection of facts that I can't believe it can't be speedied, but it's not a test page, nor an obvious copyvio (it's not a terribly good translation of the Spanish references, but not copyvio). I suppose it might qualify for A10 (duplication of Heart), but that doesn't seem to fit either. Ignatz mice•talk 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct to find that this article does not meet any of the CSDs, this AFD was the right thing. Zad68 03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, 100%. Stalwart111 05:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although very well-intentioned this article is inappropriate. This topic should be covered at Human_heart#Lifestyle_and_heart_health and Cardiovascular_disease. Zad68 03:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a good-faith attempt at creating an article but ultimately it's too WP:HOWTO and simply not encyclopaedic in style. It's basically a helpful medical brochure, not a Wikipedia article. Stalwart111 05:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically a WP:HOWTO unencyclopedic collection of facts and ideas. I'm surprised we haven't made a CSD category for things like this. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 00:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking too, but we don't have one, so here it is. Ignatz mice•talk 01:59, 9 May 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 Student life at the University of Pennsylvania#Hey Day. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Day

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

Even the only WP:RS cited states that it is an event that holds no interest beyond the school community. Just plain not notable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Ignatz mice•talk 02:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The RS says it may appear frivolous to outsiders, not that it "holds no interest beyond the school community". Add the word "Penn" to the search links in the header above and there's a large amount of interest in the Philadelphia press (though skip the Daily Pennsylvanian, which is the student newspaper), along with non-local sources including:

"Penn modifies ritual to avoid hazing label". Pittsburg Post-Gazette. April 14, 2007.
"Heyday Celebrated at Pennsylvania; Students Elected to Junior and Senior Honor Societies and Undergraduate Council". New York Times. May 18, 1929. (paywalled but appears to be a whole article about Hey Day)
Amey A. Hutchins (2004). University of Pennsylvania. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738535227. (page 124)

Dricherby (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. Dricherby (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Student life at the University of Pennsylvania#Hey Day. Even if it gets some local press, that doesn't make it independently notable, though it can certainly be covered as part of another article, and there's already 2 paragraphs here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirect would be good with the nominator also. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the content is from an unreliable blog source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013

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

In previous years, the Romanian Top 100 was a valid chart, so there's nothing wrong with the earlier articles. This year, however, the Romanian Top 100 is no longer published, and all material in this article is sourced to a blogspot chart. —Kww(talk) 01:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Erick (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx ? Isn't Media Forest the publisher of the Romanian Top 100, as stated in the Romanian Top 100 article? Razvan Socol (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links don't go anywhere for me tonight. When they did, I remember them as leading to various different top 25 charts.—Kww(talk) 07:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link works for me. It points to six Top-10 charts (Songs-Radio / Artists-Radio&TV / Songs-TV; for both Romanian and International). I'm not familiar with the weekly charts of the RT100, so I don't know if they are similar to those or not. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working again. Those are six different charts, not related to the Romanian Top 100. What the blog that this article is using for sources seems to be doing is adding the different charts together and trying to synthesize what the Romanian Top 100 would have listed if it were still around.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The official Romanian chart is compiled by mediaforest, but they keep the charts broken down by categories. The blogspot only puts together all the data gathered by mediaforest. Actually, I have some doubts about the charts for the previous years, since the disappearance of rt100.ro. The charts from 2011 and 2012 are based on the Airplay 100 broadcasted by Kiss FM, and that isn't the Official Romanian chart. Eddie Nixon (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that an amateur blog serves as a reliable source?—Kww(talk) 15:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody could be a reliable source as long as they are doing simple maths. And this is the issue here, we need somebody to add the charts compiled by mediaforest. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That contradicts WP:RS. It's not the ability to do math that is in question, it is the reputation for fact checking and accuracy.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is clearly a good article, and it IS official and valid, why? It compiles the data from Media Forest, the official national monitoring system in Romania (as well as in Israel, etc.) The number-one and the top-ten positions are clearly matching the data from mediaforest, and it was stated by UPFR (the Romanian Record Association) that mediaforest are the current valid collaborators, not Airplay 100. This page must stay! PS I worked hard for days on this page and I consider doing a good job.Innano1 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it sourced only to blogspot.ro?—Kww(talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and per the deletion in AfD of similar lists. Why stop at 10? Where are the sources for each song's entry date, peak date and length of stay in top ten? Where is the discussion in reliable sources regaring the significance of being in the top 10 in Romania? I think we are good with the likes of number-one lists such as List of number-one singles of the 2010s (Romania). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:42, 30 April 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) 01:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to expand a bit here, because it would be a travesty if an article like this was retained because someone closed the AFD as "no consensus". By strength of argument, this one is a slam-dunk. There used to be a "Romanian Top 100": http://web.archive.org/web/20061023091928/http://www.rt100.ro/top-100-edition.html is an archived example of what used to be there. http://www.rt100.ro is dead, though.

Innano1 has published a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro where he adds together the various unrelated charts published by MediaForest (Note that the blogger links at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro leads you to http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 which lists STEFF1995S as a blogger id, and, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Innano1, Innano1's original account was STEFF1995S). If he did this directly on Wikipedia, the WP:SYNTH violation would be obvious. For a Wikipedia editor to start a blog, do the synthesis in the blog, and then post the result here using the synthesis as a citations is unacceptable. It flies in the face of WP:RS.

Note that Eddie Nixon's vote is based on a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS, and Innano1's vote is a vote for inclusion of material from his own blog.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is biased because I'm from Romania and I think that Romanian Top 100 deserves its page on wikipedia. I agree that this page should be deleted, and also the page for 2012, because the last official source regarding the Romanian Top 100 is a podcast from Kiss FM dating 19 February 2012 (http://www.kissfm.ro/emisiuni/30/Romanian-Top-100.html). After that, Kiss FM broadcasted its own chart, Airplay 100 (http://www.kissfm.ro/emisiuni/54/Airplay-100.html) and the pages related to the chart on wikipedia were updated according to the new show. So I'm changing my vote to Delete, as long as the list from 2012 is deleted, as well as every other infos regarding the chart that were introduced after 19 February 2012 on Romanian Top 100. Eddie Nixon (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to delete the other article. I've edited it to indicated that the chart stopped publication on Feb 19, 2012 and removed all data from Feb 26 onwards.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a much more serious issue that any WP:IINFO argument. There's no way this article can stay based on the evidence. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an apparent hoax, ~~and as it was created by a blocked user in violation of their block.~~ Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wrong about the article creator being a blocked sock, I misread things, but this is still a hoax, since there is no such thing as this Top 100 chart any more, and Top 100 Top 10 is a nonsense description anyway. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Its encyclopedic to list the most popular songs in a nation year by year. If http://www.mediaforest.ro/WeeklyCharts/HistoryWeeklyCharts.aspx is a reliable source for this information, then link to it. If anyone doubts the accuracy of the information they can get a calculator and add up the numbers themselves, confirming this other site is in fact accurate. And does anyone speak the native language of this nation? You could probably find additional reliable sources that way as well. Dream Focus 08:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would certainly be possible to build a list of top 10 singles based on the Media Forest charts. That article wouldn't contain "Romanian Top 100" in its title, because Media Forest doesn't use that name. It wouldn't use any of the content from this article, because all the figures would be different, and it would directly reference MediaForest.ro because it would be about the Media Forest charts, not about the Romanian Top 100. Two different lists, completely different content.—Kww(talk) 14:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just rename it List of the top 10 singles in Romania in 2013 Dream Focus 14:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Using no content of the current article? Not even the title? What purpose does that serve?—Kww(talk) 15:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're using the list. That's most of the article. The only thing you eliminate is the opening summary and the current title. Would you rather a new article be made and have the same information compiled or copied over to it? What purpose would that serve? Dream Focus 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The data doesn't even match. The blog synthesized a position based on data from Media Forest, but the rankings in the blog don't match any Media Forest charts. That's the problem. Innano1/STEF1995S wanted to continue a "Romanian Top 100" listing after the "Romanian Top 100" list stopped being published, so he created a blog, manipulated the figures from Media Forest to suit his own needs, and then used that blog as a source for articles he was editing.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        If its inaccurate, the hell with it then, nothing to salvage. Dream Focus 17:37, 18 May 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. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jethro Rothe-Kushel

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

Fails WP:Promo, Wikipedia:Notability, and WP:RS. Sources are self published or college club web pages. Article is by editors whose only contribution is this article. It has been deleted before and has been reposted in almost exactly the same form. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks like a solid worker, but coverage of individual in media is negligible.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Negligible" is a subjective term. In this case are the 32 references not yet sufficient? How many more references would be required?

Delete the NYTimes refs sound impressive, but they are just the reprint of the basic info on the movie from allmovieguide. IMdB does not list him as a producer on the films in the filmography, "Line producer" is apparently a very junior title. He lists himself as in 30 under 30, which is a promotional site at [13] and I think worth absolutely nothing towards notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data" at [14], acquired by the New York Times in 2006 according to this article [15]. The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites like this one [16]. Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke according to a Los Angeles Times article at [17] and according to The Hollywood Reporter article at [18]. LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional puffery. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no referenced guideline for this perspective. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have attempted to help the original creator fix many of the links and references since its creation, and would hate to see this work go to waste. Please let me know how to improve it rather than simply delete. This is the second time user lexlex has proposed the article for deletion and appears not to be a disinterested third party. The reasons for deletion -- WP:Promo is currently an undefined reason for deletion. Article meets "Significant coverage" guidelines by having 32 third party references and 17 external sources that are "Reliable" and "Independent of the Subject" as defined by Wikipedia including the California Film Commission, Variety, New York Times, and Producers Guild of America, all of which are recognized as third party sources by Wikipedia. The 30 Summit [19] seems to be a third party source with no relation to this articles subject, but can delete this reference, if there is evidence otherwise. Line Producer is a legitimate function and nowhere in Wikipedia's description does it define this as a junior function. Wikipedia defines it as "a type of film producer who functions as the key manager during the daily operations of a feature film, television film or the episode of a TV program." Many Line Producers are currently listed on Wikipedia including Michael Williams, Christopher Sabat, Colleen Clinkenbeard, Zach Bolton, Danièle Gégauff. Also, there are many third party references to Producer credits for this individual including the New York Times ^[1]. Happy to help improve the article in any specific ways required, but please keep the article.FidelityTree (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no connection at all to the subject of the article and nominated it for deletion merely on form. I re-nominated it because it was just re-posted after it was deleted the first time. Sometimes a subject simply isn't notable enough for Wikipedia - yet. Things can always change, the subject can certainly become notable, but at this point I just don't see it. A line producer is no different than a construction site supervisor, a tough job but really not notable in any sense. I'm sorry you disagree, but give it time. If this guy keeps working and becomes notable or famous he will certainly appear here - but that has to happen first. Wikipedia attempts to reflect reality, not create it. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage lacking to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data" at [20], acquired by the New York Times in 2006 according to this article [21]. The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites like this one [22]. Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke according to a Los Angeles Times article at [23] and according to The Hollywood Reporter article at [24]. LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Updated. WP:DEL-CONTENT Deleted links, fixed some broken links, and added new references since the creation of this thread. Thank you for the suggestions. Originally, I improved this article from the original deletion with the help of User:SarahStierch. I did not create the first article, although I did improve on it and created this new article. It appears User:Lexlex was the same user who nominated the first article for deletion. The New York Times reference here is based on official data compiled by Baseline (database), a "global authority in verified entertainment data"^[2], acquired by the New York Times in 2006.^[3] The individual is also listed as Producer on several movie's official websites. "The Courier". wellgousa.com. May 12, 2013. Well Go Entertainment owns the rights to this movie starring Jeffrey Dean Morgan & Mickey Rourke^[4] according to The Hollywood Reporter.^[5] LA Times, New York Times, Variety, and Hollywood Reporter meet the WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Said sources are "reliable" and "independent" of the subject according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. WiniBot356 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and here is why:

First, the nominator cited that it's WiniBot365's only article. That is not a reason enough to nominate it for deletion, so I trust everyone here to ignore that sentiment. Plenty of new editors contribute single great articles (look at the education program, for example) so that isn't a case for nomination.
I encourage everyone to read the guidelines for Creative professionals regarding notability.
I did remove some weasel words and non-neutral language, as well as external links that were placed in the article, and excessive external links in the external links section. Please see WP:EXTERNAL to learn about how to use external links wisely.
Some notes on the sources:

First source appears to be a circular reference, thus failing the reference guidelines.
The OV guide source fails WP:RELIABLE because it's basically publishing content created by the subject. Which makes it non reliable.
The Studio System link doesn't provide any information about the subject, so, at first glance it's not reliable or useful at all. I can only assume good faith on source 5.
The sources from Dartmouth, in theory, fail as reliable sources since they are directly associated with the subject, since he attends (or attended) Dartmouth. They can't be used to establish notability in this situation, because it's going to be a non-neutral source since he's a student there and they are naturally going to love him. Including sources [25][26][27]
Dead link, thus not able to establish anything: [28]
"Mere mentions" aren't enough to merit notability. A mere mention is basically someone mentioning one's name briefly, like here. And [29][30].
Non reliable sources include those produced by the subject, like these: [31][32][33][34][35]
The New York Times mentions aren't enough to establish notability, as it's just a collection of information about thousands of people. Just because one is listed in that database doesn't establish notability. Examples: [36][37][38][39] Same with this Yahoo! one[40][41]
That FanPix website appears to be as equally unreliable as IMDB can be. Please review information about using sources like this here. [42]
This source doesn't even mention the subject thus failing to establish any notability.[43] Same with this [44] and this. Oh and another [45] and this one also[46][47]

Hope this helps some in regards to your future articles. It looks like the subject isn't notable enough yet. SarahStierch (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasons are enumerated below along with some insightful guidelines and essays to consider:

The primary reason for deletion that has been suggested is a lack of notability. The guidelines on notability are worth considering here. 32 sources are referenced here, and the majority are classified as reliable, secondary, and independent sources. Refer to the guidelines here, WP:GNG.
"Significant Coverage" of the 32 references here, most address the subject significantly.
"Reliable" Most sources are third party sources. A few references have been deleted or may need to be deleted, but not enough to warrant deletion of the entire article.
The majority of the sources referenced are secondary sources.
The majority of the sources cited are independent of the subject.
This article seems to be in need of development. During this thread alone, it has been significantly improved. The essay [WP:CHANCE] is worth reading.
Just because an article can be improved is not reason to demolish. WP:DEMOLISH
When in doubt, don't delete. WP:DOUBT
There has been no work done on the talk page here. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. WP:BATHWATER
This might be an example of Overzealous deletion. WP: ZEAL Nothing has been mentioned here that ultimately warrants deletion.
WP:JNN Simply stating that a subject is not notable, the sources are unreliable or is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis.
These sites are clearly third party and not bias. [48] [49] [50][51]Fight Club Article [52][53] [54]

These reasons should be enough to conclude that while the article may benefit from additional development, like all articles on Wikipedia. But a significant amount of reliable information is here that would be of interest to a potential reader who is interested in genre movies or any of the cult movies listed here. it should not be kept. Verireal (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this is the place for it, but three users: Verireal, WiniBot356, FidelityTree have worked almost exclusively on this subject's page and have all written (and voted) in this discussion. The thing that puzzles me is that they all use the same hyper-correct, hyper-linking writing style which I've rarely seen - especially from new editors with virtually no editing history - and all have a huge interest in this subject. This tells me that I either may have missed a huge following of the subject or that there may be some WP:SOCK going on. Since I have never dealt with this can anyone help me determine if this warrants a Sockpuppet investigation? I've never done it and am not really familiar with the criteria. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May I ask that we please, Assume good faith and WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. I can't speak for others, but though I'm a new comer, I'm doing my best to help the Wikipedia community, and would appreciate if we can stay on subject. If there is another subject that needs my help I will be there! Verireal (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to be clear, I do not see this as an example of not assuming good faith or of biting the newcomer. Lexlex has just voiced an opinion that has merit. Perhaps a Sock Investigation is warranted. reddogsix (talk) 00:59, 15 May 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. L Faraone 04:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Hustle

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

Non-notable film. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Notable film. Immediately found nice reviews by DVD Verdict [55] and DVD Talk [56] and CraveOnline [57] Yes, the nominated article lacked use of the many available sources, but addressing THAT issue of one of the fixable things we do here to build an encyclopedia. Always best to look beyond a stub article and work toward improving it. IMHO. Nominator, now that you have brought attention to a needy article, why not withdraw? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, I have seen the dvdverdict.com and dvdtalk.com reviews, but I'm not entirely convinced that these meet the criteria for reliable sources that the notability guideline calls for. I'm not particularly active with articles dealing with movies, so it could be that these are extremely well-respected sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as required by WP:RS. If that's the case, point me in the direction of some indication of that kind of consensus and I'll be happy to withdraw. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Verdict and DVD Talk have long been accepted as suitably independent and reliable sources for use in film articles, just as is CraveOnline. Plus, it has spoken of in some detail on the Dutch site FOK! [58] and enough others to meet the requisites set by WP:NF. While nice to have, we do not expect that every film ever made be reviewed by The New York Times. Others may dig through earlier film discussions and offer links to the earlier consensus discussions establishing their suitability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: DVD Verdict accepted widely for films and actor articles: [59] DVD Verdict accepted widely for film and actor articles:[60] And keeping WP:USEBYOTHERS in mind, I found WP:RSN discussions of both sites from back in 2009: [61] [62] Doubtless there are more... as the two sites seemed subject to well-meant questioning every few years with the same result... but not lately, as consensus was reached. Your uncertainty may be reason enough for you to ask for clarification of their suitability over at Project Film. As a coordinator there, I would be interested to find out if consensus has changed... always a possibility. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be fair to characterize those RSN discussions as reaching a consensus on the reliability of these sources. Because of that, I think it would be premature to withdraw the AfD. I agree, though, that there's no reason not to source it out as much as we can and see if the improvements can change its prospects, so I made a few changes as well.

As it stands, it doesn't seem like the sources we're citing are giving this film any more coverage than they'd give to any other straight-to-DVD release that they use to pad their databases. DVD Verdict, for instance, says that it wants to review "everything that comes to market." WP:GNG's underlying logic in requiring a reliable source to establish notability seems to be that we trust such sources to tell us what is and isn't notable, but coverage from a source that thinks every film is notable doesn't actually tell us anything about notability.

The exception would be the Sentinel/AALB review, but I don't know if a single review is enough to push it over the notability hurdle. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have more than just a "single" review. In your dismissing the use of DVD Verdict and DVD Talk as suitable for reviewing independent DVD films, you seemed to have overlooked the in-depth analysis and commentary of CraveOnline. So I count four and more are coming under WP:SOFIXIT and WP:USEBYOTHERS. While certainly wonderful to have, we do not realistically expect every film ever made to have in-depth coverage in The New York Times or Variety, and we may look to those "lessor" sources accepted as specifically set to review independent projects. And while you feel they were inclusive, the WP:RSN discussions from 4 years ago did not result in a decision that they were unsuitable. That DVD Verdict (or any RS) may have a page singing their own praises is a non-argument. They are not a non-profit organization and their brags about themselves is not a factor that detracts from editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of an opinion piece. As much as I enjoyed your including a link to a funny scene on Youtube infringed by someone from The Incredibles, we are not speaking about the scripted Syndrome character line "When everyone's super, no one is." We are specking about reasonable applicability of WP:NF, and if a released film has coverage, it might be determined as notable. Is this as notable as the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises? Certainly not. Is it "just" notable enough to remain and be further improved? I think yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DVD Verdict is bragging when it says it wants to review everything; I think it's just saying that it wants to be comprehensive. There's nothing wrong with that, but I think one has to acknowledge that such aspirations reflect on its reliability as an indicator of notability. We may just disagree, so I'll move on to the other main point of my disagreement. You say that those aspirations don't detract from their reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking. I agree with that, but it raises a more important question: What exactly is their reputation for editorial oversight and fact-checking?

If you can point me in the direction of something to indicate that DVD Verdict (or DVD Talk, or Crave) has some sort of respecteable editorial pedigree, that would go a long way to convincing me that these are appropriate sources. Short of that, I'm happy to wait and hear what others think about this, though it's increasingly looking like the two of us are just talking to ourselves. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were speaking of an academic topic, this discussion would be easier... but we are taliking films. Film criticisms are opinion pieces contained in reliable sources which otherwise vet for factual accuracy... opinions acceptable as long as properly attributed. Such attention, analysis and commentary whether positive or negative, is exactly what MOS:FILM#Critical response requires. We would have loved it if someone like Roger Ebert had thought to review a minor independent film, but he preferred bigger fish. A reviewer's "opinion" is not something of which editors of news sources of the highest pedigree would ever take issue. For reviews, what matters is that the source be widely accepted as expert in their field and cited by others due to this expertise. DVD Verdict and DVD talk have that reputation and are widely cited by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really widely cited by others? I haven't seen that. Again, that's the sort of thing that would really change my mind here, but I haven't seen anything to establish WP:USEBYOTHERS applies; the only people I see citing these sources are other WP editors, which I'm pretty sure doesn't count. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Update: Since nomination, article has been expanded and sourced to better serve this encyclopedia. More to do, yes. In this instance, deletion does not serve the project nor its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as keep Thanks to Michael here for the fine work... Proving that this film IS notable... ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:12, 12 May 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 Cassandra (metaphor). L Faraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra paradox

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

If you google "Cassandra paradox", you'll see that the term means different things to different people. As described in this article, it bears a strong resemblance to a self-fulfilling prophecy, but in the article's single source, it seems to be another name for the Hawthorne effect. This source defines it as something akin to a self-defeating prophecy, and this one invokes it while discussing the problem of evil. And so forth. The bottom line is that this particular definition of the term isn't notable, and nor are any of the others. Given that there's such disagreement over what the Cassandra paradox actually is, I think outright deletion would be more appropriate than a merge or redirect to another article. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps a variant of Cassandra (metaphor)? Praemonitus (talk) 00:03, 25 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:43, 1 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, czar · · 01:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a clear violation of WP:NPOV, if not also of WP:OR and WP:N. The single source is insufficient and unbalanced, and as nom indicates, if we were to remove the POV elements in this article, there'd be nothing left. It's basically an Internet pop culture bandwagon, full of sound and fury, signifying ... nothing. It can't be made into a good article because other sources mean different things by the term so it would become a ragbag of unrelated materials. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chiswick Chap. As about scholarly use, it is not consistent with the article, where most uses of "Cassandra paradox" are synonyms of Cassandra effect, not its contrapositive.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cassandra (metaphor). There doesn't seem a single definition of what this means, and if none of the senses are notable then the article should be deleted. Cassandra (metaphor) lists various Cassandra-related terms and concepts and might be of some use to interested readers. (It might be possible to merge some content.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cassandra (metaphor) which appears to cover the subject well. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:26, 15 May 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. L Faraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Box

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

I argue that this is a completely pointless article. Lachlan Foley 10:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important box set by an important band. Perhaps it just needs some delineation, particularly in regards to the two discs of previously unreleased material on it? Greg Fasolino (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two questions: 1. Why should this not at least be summarised within the band's discography in the Chrome article with this becoming a redirect there? and 2. Why didn't you consider that before bringing this to AfD per WP:BEFORE? --Michig (talk) 18:18, 24 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not at all to my taste musically, but it's certainly a significant release by an important band that had a major role in the foundations of what is now called industrial music. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:23, 1 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, czar · · 01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Nom didn't really cite any policy reason for deletion, anyways. Ansh666 04:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until OP provides a more valid argument than "it's pointless". — Richard BB 14:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chrome (band) as per WP:NALBUMS. Chrome are sufficiently notable to have individual articles for records in their main discography, but this isn't that, and its importance isn't even demonstrated in the band's chronology on their own article. --Drasil (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...the fact that the main article does not discuss Chrome Box reflects the main article's shortcomings rather than the notability of the release; a better solution would be to briefly discuss the importance of the box within the main article. The box is an iconic release (unprecedented at the time, for a band of their genre) and a quick Googling will confirm that it's considered noteworthy (http://www.headheritage.co.uk/unsung/review/138/ http://www.trouserpress.com/entry.php?a=chrome http://www.allmusic.com/album/chrome-box-mw0000053733 ). One music blogger I found plainly states what I think can be found elsewhere if I looked harder: "Their collection ‘The Chrome Box’ is one of the most essential collections of music ever made" (http://heathenharvest.org/2012/10/12/october-obituaries-category-viii-damon-edge/). It's more than just a perfunctory box set... I would say an apt comparison would be Chrome Box is to Chrome what Decade is to Neil Young. Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:01, 14 May 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. L Faraone 04:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Skills

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

Advertising, Does not meet WP:NOTE or WP:NOTADVERTISING FlatOut 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 24 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:39, 1 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, czar · · 01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Plenty about the string "21st Century Skills" under GScholar, but this particular work does not stand out in reviews. Also, looks frightfully like WP:COPYVIO.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Agreed that WP:COPYVIO is an issues. The book's author created the page (see discussion) and believed they could override WP:COPYVIO. FlatOut 00:10, 9 May 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. J04n(talk page) 18:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Chan

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

BLP does not have enough secondary sourcing to establish notability. I looked through books, newspaper articles and website but I did not find any secondary sources which discuss Dan Chan's life and career in detail. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to attribute. Please see this video for news sources and clippings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpM6KzKjAqU Dan is one of the few magicians who perform internationally for celebrity clients and billionaires. 3 times in Washington DC and 4 times in Japan, Las Vegas multiple times, Arizona, Portland. Dan has also been featured on Groupon six times, Living Social, Amazon Local and Google Offers. Please do a google search for Dan Chan Groupon. (talk) 12,23, 30 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielgchan (talk • contribs) 05:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (unrelated). "Known for magic, pickpocketing" "Dan was an early employee at PayPal." That's all czar · · 03:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not pass our entertainer notability guidelines. Does magic at places like "Dynasty Seafood Restaurant". I'm not gonna knock that, we all have to make money somehow, but it's pretty unambigiously short of any reasonable expectation of notability for a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:11, 2 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) 01:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I Was waiting to see if more sources showed up, but it doesn't look likely. The only halfway decent source is three local awards in 2007, and that's not nearly enough. Grayfell (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources I've seen for Dan Chan the Magic Man are either self-sourced, you-tubey stuff, commercial promotions, and such which does not count towards the multiple, independently published material dealing substantially with the subject necessary for a passage of the WP:General Notability Guideline. @DanielGChan, in the future as newspaper features etc. arise, clip and attribute; when you get three or four of them together, get in touch with another Wikipedian to help restart the page. Apologies, but this looks to be a GNG fail from my quick spin around the internets... Carrite (talk) 18:09, 8 May 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 18:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YGOnDaBeat

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

Fails every point of WP:NMUSIC and fails WP:GNG. A not notable producer that has only produced a few songs, the majority by artists without Wikipedia articles and has not been covered by various independent reliable sources. Also a Google News search turns up nothing. STATic message me! 03:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Not sure I can comment as the article creator, but here's my point of view. Record producers are different from regular musicians as they rarely release records on their own. Instead they usually produce works for other artists. The producer in question has produced an album (Finally Rich) which has charted on the Billboard 200, as well as on Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums and Top Rap Albums, and as such should meet point 2 of WP:NMUSIC for musicians. Coverage by various sources is not the only criteria for notability. 2Flows (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make it out to seem like he produced the whole album, when he only produced two songs. Point two is for songs or albums HE has released, not producing two songs(neither being singles for that matter) on one album that charted on a couple Billboard charts. It is not the only, but it is the most important that "the subject has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself". We can not have an article for every record producer that makes a song that appears on a popular artists album. Notability is not inherited, and I could not find a single reliable source covering him.STATic message me! 05:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he produced 1 song or 10, he is still credited as producer. And point 2 ("Has had a single or album") doesn't mention he released it as primary artist. As I said, producers don't usually release records as main artists, but work on albums by other artists. In my opinion, a producer meets WP:NMUSIC if he has produced a single or an album, which has charted on a national chart, since it's his work as well. 2Flows (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be true if the whole album was produced by him, but since it was not he does not meet WP:NMUSIC. According to your logic, where are the articles for Casa Di, Leek-E-Leek, Lil Keis, Nard & B. and Young Ravisu? The others various producers on that album. Thats right they would all be deleted for not meeting NMUSIC just like this one will. He is no more notable than any of them. Being covered by independent reliable sources in the main merit for inclusion for any article in Wikipedia. You have ignored the fact that any single reliable source has yet to be provided, that covers this producer in detail. STATic message me! 05:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The non-existence of articles on closely related topics is irrelevant: this is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps all of these people are notable but nobody's had the time or inclination to write articles on them, except for YGOnDaBeat. As you say later, it's the existence of reliable sources that determines notability, not the existence or non-existence of similar articles. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, just like YGOnDaBeat all those people produced songs on the album, and have no reliable sources covering them. I know what OTHERSTUFF exists is. This whole nomination is based on the fact I could find zero reliable sources covering this producer. STATic message me! 12:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So stick to arguments about notability: invalid arguments based around WP:OTHERSTUFF just cause confusion and don't make the case any stronger. Dricherby (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother to read any part of the discussion except two sentences? The whole nomination was behind the fact, there are zero reliable sources covering this producer. STATic message me! 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the rest. My point was solely that you shouldn't augment your perfectly valid notability arguments with invalid otherstuff arguments. If you'd like to discuss this more, drop me a line on my talk page; I think it's getting a bit off-topic for AfD. Dricherby (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the only notable artist this guy has produced for is Chief Keef, his article should be deleted right away. Koala15 (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Very impressive list of artists he wants to work with. Not at all impressed by what he's actually done. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 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) 01:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC Transcendence (talk) 18:38, 17 May 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. L Faraone 04:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Leto

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

Subject fails WP:BAND. No evidence of any independent coverage, thus notability. I would CSD, but the article has been around for a few years and has been edited by many editors, so I'd rather run it through the community. Dea db eef 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I'm tempted to cite Wikipedia:GARAGE, but that's not too accurate in this case. Ansh666 05:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable musician, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 12:38, 8 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) 01:23, 8 May 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. Michig (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Grandpa

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

Unsourced and possibly partially fabricated. I saw the creator of the article's only major contribution was this article itself, so I checked to see if there was any copyvio stuff going on. As it turns out, everything after the lead is directly copied (or, it was before I fixed the grammar) from the Cartoon Network Wikia article on Uncle Grandpa from June 2012. Further, it's just too soon to have an article on this series. The IMDB doesn't even have it listed yet that I can find. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 05:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12: unambiguous copyvio. (Why did you edit it when you could have just speedied it for copyvio?) Delete. (Copyvio was from Wikia, which is CC-licensed, so it's allowed.) I can confirm that at least the show is real via this official press release, but it's WP:TOOSOON for any other reliable coverage. Also IMDB is usually considered unusable, not credible. czar · · 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Last edit: czar · · 08:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't notice it was a copyvio until after I edited it. I guess it would be better for speedy in that case, but considering it's supposedly going to happen anyway, I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry—I was just curious. But, yes, you can save some time next time with a speedy. czar · · 06:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm still not crazy about the source reliability, but it isn't enough to stand in the way of keeping it. czar · · 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just declined the speedy, as the Wikia content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. There shouldn't be any copyright problems with using it on Wikipedia, as long as it is attributed properly. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 30 April 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) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Lot of sources speak about this upcoming cartoon serial as found after goggling. --Robustdsouza (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If most of this article's content was just copied from the Cartoon Network Wiki, then it ought to be re-written, but as long as there aren't any copyright problems, I don't see why it would need to be deleted. In addition to the press release linked to by czar and the article from Animation Magazine included in the article, a brief google search revealed the following - Cartoon Brew, tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com, deadline.com, Hollywood Reporter. --Jpcase (talk) 00:40, 10 May 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) 07:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being Alone (Novel)

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

Unsourced, no indication of notability, little context Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 00:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably could have been {{prod}}'d with little fanfare. czar · · 01:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obscure self-published book with no claim of notoreity. -Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, no eligibility for A7, but certainly deserving of A7. Hell, the article even ADMITS that the author is unknown. Safiel (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any appropriate coverage of this book either. However the statement in the article "a currently unknown author" is ambiguous. It might mean the author has not received much attention or it might mean no one knows the real person who has adopted this nom de plume. Whatever is meant, the book might still be notable. Thincat (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage that I can find online, on any of the usual sources of reviews or by a general google search. No indication of notability in the article either. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:24, 8 May 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) 07:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McGlaughlin

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was apparently accepted from AfD under the mistaken impression that Croatia Cleveland, against which he competed, was the national team of Croatia. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - un-notable article about minor player. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 13:37, 14 May 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. Certainly no consensus to delete. Any rewriting, cleanup, or merging can be discussed and carried out outside of AfD. Michig (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juntobox films

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

Non-notable film studio, already speedied several times. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and specifically states that it operates "micro-budget films", which reduce the chances of notability. The article is quite promotional. Suggest SALTing the title as well, as it's been recreated quite a lot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I originally listed it as speedy A7, but another editor thought the connections with other artists sufficiently significant to need it to be brought here. I think they're mere unfulfilled plans, or dreams. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gets substantial writeups from a Forbes columnist in March 2012 ("How Forest Whitaker And Two Film Buffs Are Elevating Social Movies"), a March 2012 USA Today column ("Oscar-winner Whitaker and his new social-media gig"), and in a January 2013 Variety article about their sponsorship of "the largest p[r]ize in Slamdance history" ("Slamdance, JuntoBox partner for screenplay competition"), as well as a briefer mention in a March 2012 Los Angeles Times article ("Celebrities Lend Talent to Tech"). Not yet decided about whether a separate article is justified, but I do think there's enough here to justify some mention at Forest Whitaker. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for the relevant information to be de-spamified and then added into the Forest Whitaker article, with a protected redirect (fully protected for a few months, with no prejudice to it being lifted early if the company become seperately notable). From the links you've listed, it doesn't appear that the company is independently notable of that one guy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arxiloxos has identified adequate reliable sources to support a small article on this organization, so there is no reason we should not have one. If the current text is inadequate, it should be replaced with something that is, rather than the entire article deleted. AFD is not cleanup. JulesH (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Graser's bylined news story in Variety was misidentified as a "press release." I've corrected that. Graser is a senior writer, and this is indeed a WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked again today and the company was the subject of a Screen International news story on May 2. This page may have been created a tad prematurely but the company is the subject of multiple reliable sources and the Screen also mentioned there'll be another project announced by Whittaker at the Los Angeles Film Festival next month, which is sure to get more coverage. The article name needs to be fixed, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 3 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) 00:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In view of what was found, I have no objection to keeping it if Shawn or Jules want to take responsibility for the rewrite DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) t[reply]
- I have not and am not volunteering to do that. And AfD is not cleanup. I think it's clear based on this AfD that there are sufficient WP:RS out there to keep, regardless of the state of the article, but you should continue to !vote as you see fit, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 May 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.

^ "Gingerdead Man". New York Times. Retrieved 2012-12-22.
^ "NY Times Sells TV/Movie Database Baseline". Baseline. May 12, 2013.
^ "NY Times Sells TV/Movie Database Baseline". Deadline Hollywood Daily. October 7, 2011.
^ "What happened to Mickey Rourke?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2013-05-12.
^ "Well Go Entertainment Picks Up the Action Movie 'The Courier'". The Hollywood Reporter. May 22, 2012.

[1] "Gingerdead Man". New York Times. Retrieved 2012-12-22.

[Baseline-2] "NY Times Sells TV/Movie Database Baseline". Baseline. May 12, 2013.

[Deadline-3] "NY Times Sells TV/Movie Database Baseline". Deadline Hollywood Daily. October 7, 2011.

[4] "What happened to Mickey Rourke?". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2013-05-12.

[HollywoodReporter.com-5] "Well Go Entertainment Picks Up the Action Movie 'The Courier'". The Hollywood Reporter. May 22, 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]