Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 4 September	6 September >

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 delete. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veerappa Naidu Sakhamuri

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

This biography offers no indications of notability for this individual, and I cannot find any online. All search results are mirrors of this article. The article was created by an SPA almost four years ago, and has linked only to one other page in this time. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 01:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. Surprised that it lasted so long. Abecedare (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL site --Tito☸Dutta 01:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 6 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kedrowski

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

I'm not a climber, and don't know whether there's a salvageable subject under all the fluff the subject has added to "his" article (I'm pretty confident his trophy case from high school basketball could go). Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what this AfD is doing in the academics' section, but a GS h-index of 4 certainly fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources discuss the topic in depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as an adventurer, though not as a writer or academic. There is coverage in reliable sources including Denver Post (one of the USA's bigger papers), CNN, various local press (not all Colorado:[1][2]), and Denver TV news websites, both of his Colorado exploits and Everest climb. Feel free to delete the trivia, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information about the subject is Historical and Valuable to the Climbing Community. He is a well-known figure in the world of mountaineering, geography, and speaking. Everest too. Additional reliable sources added and they discuss the topic in depth. -- ChrisJones25 (talk) 15:05, 6 September 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 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steel dragon

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

This fictional species does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge and crop to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) under World of Greyhawk.Web Warlock (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. as for Wikipedia, this article fails WP:GNG as the only sources are primary, (either the creator of D&D TSR or the officially licensed producer of D&D content Piazo) delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of sources that would establish any real world context to the subject. Merging this article will not fix this fundamental problem and just creates larger list articles that are still unencyclopdic. Ridernyc (talk) 03:06, 8 September 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 Jimmy Neutron (franchise). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Neutron (character)

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

Article has no out of universe notability, all nothing but fancruft. JJ98 (Talk) 21:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either weak keep (with much trimming) or redirect to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. I'm leaning toward the former because the character is front and center in a movie, TV series and video game. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up/improve - as Clarityfiend says, he's the main (title) character for a movie, animated series, and video game (see Jimmy Neutron (disambiguation)). That also creates the problem of there being no clear target to merge and/or redirect. Ansh6 6 6 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Now that the franchise article exists, we can merge there. Ansh6 6 6 16:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Fictional character that appears in multiple notable fictional works without a single merge target. Likely notable in his own right. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and major clean up per above. Yes, the article is mostly fancruft but the subject is notable "Likely in his own right," said Jclemens. Article needs more sources and needs to be more encyclopedic in tone. Overall, the article is not a subject for deletion. Mediran (t • c) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. Anything discussing the character would likely fit into the main article perfectly fine. It can always be split out again should it take up too much space. TTN (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article. I agree with TTN. If it takes up too much space, it can spun out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep central character in significant entertainment franchise (spanning multi-season TV show, several movies, games, rides, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Neutron (disambiguation) (which should be located at Jimmy Neutron) as he isn't notable on his own. Disappointed with all the "he's a central character" votes - Notability isn't inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - how about this: we repurpose this page to be about the franchise instead of the character? Move it to "Jimmy Neutron", etc. I'm surprised that there isn't such a page already. Ansh6 6 6 21:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It'd probably best to simply make a new article. If we were to convert it, we'd likely have to toss out most of the article. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge: The franchise itself is worth noting, but I'm not sure Jimmy Neutron, the character, is so iconic or influential. Compare SpongeBob, who we have a GA on, who's been in focus with people wondering if he's gay, and has himself become very popular. At any rate, if Jimmy is notable, we should try to find sources that prove it, rather than simply assuming it right off the bat. And if we find them, it still might be worth redirecting this until all the sources are made into an article -- as this one is presented, it isn't really that great, and we might want to try and start anew. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started an article on the franchise: it's at Jimmy Neutron (franchise). Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Neutron (franchise), as the most reasonable outcome. Cavarrone 05:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Ethics Journal Review

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

New journal, too young to have become notable yet. No independent sources, not listed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. As for the "journals covered", WP:NOTINHERITED obviously applies. Randykitty (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom's findings and rationale. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [per nom. Nothing to add nor take away. Fiddle Faddle 20:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Smith

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not so sure here. Smith was one of the top prospects in the 2008 recruiting class, a five star recruit by Rivals and ESPN, and the top prospect overall in Georgia. His career was like Ryan Leafish however, a massive disappointment littered with injuries, academic and legal issues and poor play in general that he hardly saw any major action at all. He meets GNG easily, but for all the wrong reasons thus it can be considered as a BLP1E scenario here as he unlikely will play in the NFL and clearly wasn't known for his college achievements. Secret ^account 03:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per meeting GNG as noted above. 1E does not apply as he has a well established career and has been covered for various aspects of it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E does not apply because there of the multitude of events that make up a college football season. Subject appears to have plento of coverage to pass WP:GNG. It does not matter if this coverage is because he played very well or very poorly or anything else--the coverage is there, thus showing a demand for the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. If he's not notable as a football player, I don't see him notable for anything else.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 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, postdlf (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smith was released before he had a chance to appear in an NFL game, and I fail to find enough evidence that his college career makes him notable. --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whether his career was notable or not is initially irrelevant when the potential of GNG being satisfied is raised. He does appear to satisfy GNG; but for a single event. As a result, he falls under the BLP1E category, and then we can fall back on the particular notability guidelines, which he also fails to satisfy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question what is the "single event" ??--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:06, 6 September 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:Orangemike per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraction Calculator Plus

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

Although a free product, I believe the page creator's sole motive is promotional. Currently the only reference sources are low-value PR releases (both showing the same PR article). App is fairly notable however I do wonder how much monetization is implemented into the application.

--- Xerooz (Leave a message!)

19:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

No opinion yet - Kind of ninja'd on this: the two sources presently in the article are actually identical press releases. [3], [4], and [5] don't appear to be press releases. I'm not yet sure if these are sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG, or whether the app is sufficiently notable otherwise. Article creator Digitalchemy (talk · contribs) would appear to have a conflict of interest. Chris857 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one that probably would've been better submitted as a Speedy, as a positive article posted by a user name for the company sourced solely from press releases would likely get an easy G11. AFD standards tend to defend articles that are on supportable topics even if the article as it stands is not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diinkarazan

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to List of Greyhawk deities Web Warlock (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. No independent notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC) edit: Deletion is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. as for Wikipedia, this article fails WP:GNG as the only sources are primary, delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to provide real world context is the issue. The standard merge approach to this problem just creates larger articles that have the same fundamental problem. Ridernyc (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Notability is unclear. Deletion should be last resort. 42of8 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 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 Withdrawing Nomination - Would be better to convert it to a disambiguation page, as discussed below with Ansh666.--Bazaan (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali American

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

This article is a POV fork of Bangladeshi Americans. Bengali Americans can be grouped either under Indian Americans or Bangladeshi Americans, and there isn’t sufficient ground yet to have an entirely separate article for Bengalis. Anyone with mixed Bangladeshi - Indian heritage is called Bangladeshi-Indian American. But this article was clearly created in bad faith. It claims all Bengalis, including Bangladeshi Americans, are Indian Americans.

It’s pointless, ill-motivated and should be deleted.--Bazaan (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangladeshi American; current article is content (possible POV) fork, and people may mistake "Bangladeshi" for "Bengali". Ansh6 6 6 20:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Keep and convert to dab as discussed below. Ansh6 6 6 08:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangladeshi American, as above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A section of the Indian American community are also Bengalis, so redirecting the article to a Bangladesh page will be controversial. Presently, this article only serves notorious fringe pushers trying to erase the Bangladeshi heritage of prominent Americans and replace it with "Bengali-Indian American". It's a complete fork and its being used in bad faith, so I don't see any point in keeping it.--Bazaan (talk) 19:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I know countless stupid 'murrcans who would confuse Bengali with Bangladeshi, so it may help there. If that's deemed not enough to make a redirect, sure, delete. Ansh6 6 6 21:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can't redirect to just Bangladeshi Americans. I guess we could opt for a disambiguation page listing both the Bangladeshi and Indian pages?--Bazaan (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that would be better than a redirect. Ansh6 6 6 00:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangladeshi American, as above.Few Bengali people from India in this list.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:53, 9 September 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.‎

Chemically-induced cognitive impairment

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#R3 JohnCD (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created in error Max Hyre (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An AfD is not necessary for a bad redirect. Next time use {{db-redirtypo}} to request speedy deletion per WP:CSD#R3. I'll tag the redirect now. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. *sigh*... Sorry, I got lost trying to do the speedy-delete thing; next time (if there is one) I'll try harder to figure it out. Thanks for taking care of this. Max Hyre (talk) 18:12, 5 September 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 Code of Ethics (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott "Skippy" Chapman

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

Subject does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Supplied refs only mention subject. I also believe that the primary editor of this article is the subject and the WP:COI is evident. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No comment on the potential COI, but the claimed notability is either actually non-notable, or WP:TOOSOON. Today, the subject appears to fail WP:N. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz believes that just because I know the the subject personally, that I am creating a WP:COI. I believe he has taken offense because he went into the article and placed flags wanting citations. Apparently some of the preceding supporting links no longer work or no longer exist, so I reverted the article and started searching for new supporting links for citation. Walter Görlitz took offense and said I used improper formatting, made changes, etc which I did not. I just reverted to the previous article that may have had some improper formatting but that wasn't me, nor my goal. It was simply to remove his flags while I found new supporting information to use for citing, which is what he wanted in the first place. Just because someone was on a major label for a few records and number 1 songs apparently does not equate to being noteworthy for an article according to the complainant. People update websites and things get removed, but does that mean something is invalid or didn't exist simply because there is no longer a link supporting it? Of course not! But what it does do is makes things harder to cite as things evolve. If Walter Görlitz would have simply messaged me saying "Here are the format errors I found on the page and citations it needs, now clean it up", then things would have been fine. As he would undo my changes, I would lose my new information and citations and would want to revert so I can continue to add citations that he was requesting for in the first place. And because of this back and forth, he now wants to delete the article which I feel is him trying to get back at me instead of trying to be helpful and support the community and the reason for Wikipedia in the first place. It's not difficult to find a resolution to this disagreement, but deleting an article like this is not it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.74.46 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not about formatting errors, it is about the lack of notability of the musician. Notability is clear. I had concerns when I last edited the article and the edits I saw today reminded me that the subject's notability is in question. It's not about you but about the article. Sorry if the two events coincided and made it appear as though this was personal.

As for messaging you about the problems I found, I did comment when I cleaned-up the article on 2013-08-22. I also gave details about it today, but the problem with anonymous editing is that it's not always clear that the same address will be assigned to the same person for every edit. Communication is more difficult. Editing with an account makes communication much easier.

If you can provide some information here that shows how the subject meets any of the twelve points listed in WP:BAND (that is the subject directly, not bands in which the subject has performed, although point 6 is clear that if the subject is a member of two or more notable bands, they qualify the article could be kept. Alternately, meeting the criteria of WP:GNG would also help the subject qualify. Without support, the article is likely to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz I didn't know or see the comments, and yes, apparently communication has been difficult. I never bothered trying to create an account because I don't spend much time on here and didn't see the point. Maybe I do now.

The problem with finding the evidence online is that, as I've stated, websites are updated and things fall off which leaves things seemingly without support. It will take time. And I don't necessarily want to spend the weekend (but hopefully not the last warm and sunny weekend this year) inside. But at least give me some time to research and find more evidence. There's just a lot of criteria and I need to learn more about wiki and it's proper procedures.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.74.46 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Code of Ethics (band), as he doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of this. He has an Allmusic page here, but it's empty, and a couple of other placeholder pages on other musician sites, but that's about it it. No news or book hits. Was this edit really necessary, as opposed to a general cleanup tag at the top of the page? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Walden Drive

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

Non-notable permastub. No sources; brief check turned up only trivial mentions, some of which were to a street in Colorado and not in California. Declined PROD. Most of the content violates WP:NOT p b p 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never going to be notable enough and even if it was, the whole thing is written in such a promotional way deletion is the only way I can !vote. Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) @ 15:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The house may be notable but this does not automatically confer notability on the street on which it is located. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—An article about a street, on which a famous house (which has its own article) is built. Notability is not inherited, and 99% of the article is about the house anyway. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the subject is non notable --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a bunch of real estate/property directories exist for this (to which some lead to other similarly-named streets in Eagan, MN, Eureka, MO, Glencoe, IL and Knoxville, TN among others) ; none of which are satisfactory enough to pass WP:V. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 08:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though the house at 516 Walden Drive is indisputably notable, I have been unable to find any discussion of the street itself as a topic in reliable sources. Just lots of passing mentions. Another editor asked me to look at this AfD, but did not lobby me either way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:57, 9 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of state Libertarian Parties in the United States

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

This page serves no purpose other than to be a coatrack for external links. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator seems not to have looked carefully at the list, which indexes individual Wikipedia articles on the state parties, a standard navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. The external links can obviously be removed. See WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Nominator also misunderstands what "coatrack" means here. postdlf (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The links can be folded into the larger article for the party, as was done with Green Party of the United States; there is no need for a separate list. External links to the state affiliate websites belong in the article for that state party affiliate (most of which are themselves of questionable encyclopedic value, but that is a separate issue.) TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merging the list into another article ≠ deletion. Have you read WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD yet? postdlf (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Useful navigational function for a set of local organizational blue links... Carrite (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An additional comment for those of you from countries outside the US and Canada... It is worth noting that traditionally state and provincial level units of political parties are semi-autonomous, raising funds, producing literature, writing platforms, holding conventions, and electing officers on their own. The national parties are actually something of an illusion, it is the provincial and state parties that are actually the fundamental unit of political organization. This is somewhat less true, perhaps, of small groups like the Libertarian Party, but it is nevertheless a fact that scholars very frequently key on state-level political organizations (or compare, contrast, or agglomerate the histories of such regional groups) rather than the national unit. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The greenlinks should take the form as footnotes for each listing; they shouldn't appear in the body of the list. This is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To quote from Wikipedia's policy on External Links:
... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.
And further:
Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website. Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says.
TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and? How does dumping that text here respond to anything we've said? postdlf (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per Postdlf and Carrite. Nothing wrong with this list except the inline links, which can be turned into footnotes or deleted per the normal editing process. Even a merge as suggested by the nominator would not result in a deletion decision here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:50, 5 September 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. This discussion was probably going to result in deletion anyway, but the article was clearly created by a block-evading sockpuppet, so speedy deletion criterion G5 enabled it to be speedily deleted, without wasting any more of anyone's time on it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaakha Kaakha 2

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

Has been discussed, but is purely a hypothetical suggestion at present. WP:CRYSTAL. Shirt58 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:TOOSOON.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Goyal

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

Grave concerns about the article, and its talk page, with regards to BLP, UNDUE, Notability policy and general lack of importance, on top of which the roll-call of suffixes/awards is a clear piece of vandalism. I can find next to no evidence of this person's importance, notability or standing in society and have no confidence in this article being rescued from the self-satisfied, self-promoting PR puffery it contains. Has been a subject of a contested deletion before. doktorb _words^deeds 13:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 00:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Every single source is self published. Except for the deadlinks, that is. Possibly Internet famous, but not shown to be notable per WP standards. If this survives, somebody better do a full rewrite. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too swanky. -AfadsBad (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's delete it. It's just PR isn't it? JohnnyHankelstein (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Teh award of an OBE suggests some notability, but a lot of the editing on this article has bene done by single purpose accounts, including some clearly related to the subject. He has certainly (if we believe the article) engaged in a good deal of public service, but I see litlte in the article to make him notable in WP-terms. Lots of OBEs are awarded, and I do not think they are evidcne of notability by themselves. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Henshaw

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

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. This is a repost of previously deleted material, deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censored and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Henshaw (British musician). This version has only superficial differences to what has been deleted. He released an album with ReggiiMental (or Reggiimental), sourced by links to shops, no independent coverage. He toured and appeared at Godiva Festival but there is no independent coverage.
Article has a ridiculously over the top bombardment of references. When you get rid of youtube, blogs, fanzines, primary, user contributed, bandcamp, gig listings, stores, press release, refs where Henshaw isn't mentioned you are left with a small amount of coverage for his old band Censored. This local coverage was in the Censored article when it was deleted at afd, it was not enough to show notability for the band, let alone for any of it's members.
This was recently reposted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Matt Henshaw (along with a repost of the Censored article which was speedy deleted as a repost [6]). The Articles for creation submission was declined but User:Ilsonowl (look at the youtube link) posted it anyway.
Henshaw was not notable when this advert first appeared and nothing has happend to make him notable since so this should be deleted. Wikipedia is not here to promote you and your friends. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though his band Censored could probably squeak through an AfD now (though I note it doesn't currently have an article; the Censored links on Henshaw's page point elsewhere), the sources don't support Henshaw's notability outside of his work with that band. Opening at the Lovebox festival is the only real claim-to-fame here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Nom is correct, though perhaps some friendly admin could look at the history of the deleted Matt Henshaw article and see if it's a close enough match to get this CSD'ed. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, this was originally CSD'd, but (1) the last AfD was from a year ago and (2) this was significantly expanded, so I removed the tag. Given the drive-by "seems legit" !vote, prod probably wouldn't have been effective either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re-creation of deleted article, doesn't appear to pass our music guidelines now or then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City In the Sea

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

Fails WP:BAND particularly item #5 (2nd phrase). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't look like a clear cut WP:GARAGE case, and I found some sources : Phoneix New Times, (2), Sumerian Records (a primary source but contributes partway to #5 of WP:BAND), Metro Pulse, Peoria Journal Star. However, only the first really is what I'd call significant coverage and that's about all I can muster. While there's a chance the band might be notable later, they just aren't at present. In particular, the claim to have released an album on Mediaskare Records seems to have passed reliable sources by, which kind of suggests no-one really cares. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Good source sleuthing by Ritchie333. I'd agree that both of the Phoenix New Times articles are significant, but that's only a single source. Since the article is totally unsourced at the moment, deletion makes sense now. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ritchie333 and WP:TOOSOON --It's Atreem (From the planet Venus) 21:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ritchie333 brings up some great points. The band just doesn't have enough out there to be considered notable at the moment . T C N7JM 12:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly lacking notability. Fails WP:GNG time for {{WP:SNOW]] to fall. Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 8 September 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. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaippavan Yaar

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

This is certainly not a notable film, and even its existence is unverifiable. I can find no mention of it anywhere not derived from this Wikipedia article. The article's only source is Facebook. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While verifiability may be hard to judge for us, there is indeed no evidence at all (and little probability) of any notability. Fram (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No RS to prove notability. May even be a hoax.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any speedy deletion criterion that applies. ("Blatant hoax" is a valid criterion, but that is very different indeed from "May even be a hoax".) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax, because it's obviously a hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:07, 5 September 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. No suggestion of significance: WP:CSD#A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumar Pathela (S.K.P)

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

Procedural. Not notable student autobio. CSD declined by IP. GregJackP Boomer! 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nimrod Nimmy Kamer

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

The external links show material that he has created, they do not show his inherent notability. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, topic is covered in depth in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of sources that cover him. [7] [8] and more. It could be expanded quite a bit, though. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reliable sources identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jinggoy Valmayor

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

Non pro and non full international player. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reason, fails NFOOTBALL and GNG:

Mas y mas (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Same as above. PrairieKid (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom. Neither has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both articles fail WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete both - They have not received enough reliable coverage. They have not played professionally either. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DEMAND computing

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage. Article written by primary source and even states it was "coined" on 5 sept 2013 (i.e. today).

Not a notable methodology. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—No ghits, as expected for an acronym that's several hours old. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:PRODUCT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems it might even qualify as a speedy since it might very well be a joke, or someone trying to satisfy their bet on how they can get an article about a meaningless acronym into Wikipedia? If serious then of course it is a pure promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete , per A10, this is a nonnotable neologism for Grid computing. See also DAPPs, which is more of the same from the same author. - MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
not delete; This is an article about the next computing model after cloud computing, and is far from any joke. Although the term "DEMAND computing" is newly coined, the technology has been around in closed engineering circles, but is now taking off. I suggest the article be left and allow the community surrounding DEMAND computing have time to add links, descriptions and references. Classivertsen (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Classivertsen. Thanks for contributing the article. We've got a pretty firm policy that the publications have to come first, then the wikipedia article. To quote from our guidelines on original research:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

This isn't a reflection on the quality of your idea; we just don't publish any new ideas. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Lee Winn

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

WP:BLP1E. The article itself does not assert any reason this person should have a bio on Wikipedia. It is entirely about the crime, which although was terrible, certainly does not rise to WP:CRIME. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a lot of news sources or book sources. Fails the event criteria. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are valid and the information is pertinent. The crime is noteworthy, although it happened quite some time ago. If Wikipedia resorts to nitpicking it will become stale. Contributors deserve the right to be creative and the rules should be extended in some cases. If you contend that the sources are not enough, work with the body of the article, and try and improve it!Robert (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It troubles me that the editor above is referring (see edit summary) to his !vote as a "response". Please don't take this personally. Wikipedia policy on what crime articles we carry is fairly specific. See the links listed in the nomination. This tragic event did not receive extensive widespread coverage, nor did it cause any change in society. It is simply a very tragic local event, nothing more. Sadly, numerous people get murdered for little or no reason every day. This particular one just caused someone to write a Wikipedia article about it, an article that should have been deleted long ago. This crime does not qualify for an article about it, but this is not an article about a crime. It purports to be an article about a person, in other words a biography. Sad as it is, getting murdered does not make a person eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sad, but all too common in the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 7 September 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 deleted by User:Rmhermen under WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Bin

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

Contested Prod with no reason given, player has not played either in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 5 September 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, g5. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kok Boris

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

Contested Prod with no reason given, player has not played either in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 5 September 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 deleted by User:Sphilbrick under WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sar Sophea

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

Contested Prod with no reason given, player has not played either in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 5 September 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 deleted by User:Sphilbrick under WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sok Sovan

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

Contested Prod with no reason given, player has not played either in a fully professional league, nor played senior international football and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 5 September 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 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Lights at the Big House

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

WikiProject College football has a long-standing policy that stand-alone articles for regular season college football games should exist only in cases where the game was of great significance to the history of college football. This doesn't cut it. This game is already well covered at 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team. Any additional worthy content here should be moved there and to 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry and/or 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. Please note that Wikiprojects, including the College Football Wikiproject, do not enact Wikipedia policies on their own accord as is suggested by the nominating editor, and as such, citing a Wikiproject "policy" is not a legitimate rationale for nominating this article for deletion, particularly since any one article can fall within the dominion of multiple Wikiprojects. The Notability of this nominated article should be judged on its own accord by exising Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines. That said, I believe this article does not meet notability guidelines as the sourced citations in the article represent no more than routine coverage of a sports per WP:EVENT. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic game. First night game at the largest football stadium in the country. Game is still being referenced with sequels.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the historic aspect as described by TTT is more convincing in this case; it has significance to the stadium, for one. Ansh6 6 6 06:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it is important to the stadium, merge with Michigan Stadium. It isn't significant on its own as a first. It isn't the first game played under lights in college football. Each large or historic stadium's first night game does not warrant an article. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE. The information in this article should be merged into one or more of Michigan Stadium, Michigan Wolverines football, Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry, and/or 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team. -Jhortman (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. The "first night game at Michigan Stadium" is not so significant, as night games have been played in professional sports for, what, 80 years? College football routinely has night games. So Michigan was tardy to the party, that doesn't rise to the level of notability beyond WP:ROUTINE. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry, 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. A game being at night doesn't make it notable, especially since there have been hundreds (thousands?) of college football night games already. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I'm funny that way. Certainly there has been enough coverage to more than surpass WP:GNG and that's always been a good rule of thumb. I think the name of the article is hideous, but that's all editing issues to be handled later.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry and/or 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2011 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. --GrapedApe (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The supposed "policy" limiting stand-alone articles to games "of great significance to the history of college football" seems arbitrary. Who decides which games fit that bill? Isn't that completely subjective? We are approaching 100 articles in the Category for "College football games". Do articles like 2001 Michigan-Michigan State, 2005 Texas/Texas A&M, 1994 Fla./Fla. St., 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps really pass that test? While I generally favor covering individual games in team/season articles, and do not wish to see a proliferation of individual game articles based on routine game coverage, I think WP:GNG should be the guide rather than "great significance to the history of college football." Cbl62 (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, this is a good point. I don't know that this policy/supposed "policy"/prevailing standard (?) is arbitrary, but it may indeed be subjective. I wonder though about WP:GNG being the guide. Reading WP:GNG, it seems like just about every single Michigan-Ohio State game in recent years would pass GNG. There's always a ton of media building up the game and plenty of coverage of it after. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For example, I don't believe all the FBS bowl games are notable. Probably only a handful each year are actually notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Efforts to create black and white rules (bowl games are notable and regular season games are not) leads to absurd results. Does anyone actually believe that the 2012 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl is even close to being as notable as Under the Lights at the Big House? I'd venture to see that the news coverage of those two games was 1,000 to 1 in favor or "Under the Lights". This is just one example of why WP:GNG needs to be the guiding principle. Cbl62 (talk)

Merge to 2011 Michigan Wolverines football team. Take a look at some of the other individual college football games that have their own individual Wikipedia article. The First Game, App St.–Michigan, First TV Game, Cumberland–Georgia Tech, "The Play." All of them extremely important, significant, and iconic moments in the history of college football, not just in the history of one individual program or stadium. If this were the first college football night game ever played, I would be willing to accept it as it's own individual article. But, it's not, and it's not even close. I would also add that if the results of the game itself are judged to be extremely important in the context of the Michigan–Notre Dame rivalry, a merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry could also be in order. But, do we really need a new Wikipedia article written every time a night game is played at Michigan Stadium? Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this should be included either in the Michigan Wolverines football page or the rivaly page. Tedmoseby (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is just a name for a (brief) subset of games within a larger rivalry. JohnInDC (talk) 20:13, 7 September 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 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Lights II

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

WikiProject College football has a long-standing policy that stand-alone articles for regular season college football games should exist only in cases where the game was of great significance to the history of college football. This doesn't cut it yet and likely won't even when it is played. Content should be merged into 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry and/or 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. Please note that Wikiprojects, including the College Football Wikiproject, do not enact Wikipedia policies on their own accord as is suggested by the nominating editor, and as such, citing a Wikiproject "policy" is not a legitimate rationale for nominating this article for deletion, particularly since any one article can fall within the dominion of multiple Wikiprojects. The Notability of this nominated article should be judged on its own accord by exising Wikipedia-wide policies and guidelines. That said, I believe this article does not meet notability guidelines as the sourced citations in the article represent no more than routine coverage of a sports per WP:EVENT. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-notable game.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan-Notre Dame football rivalry or Under the Lights at the Big House (if kept) per Paco and WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh6 6 6 06:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the above suggested articles - Fails WP:ROUTINE. -Jhortman (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Non-notable game. Merge to 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "The second night game at Michigan Stadium" has less of an argument for notability than the first one does. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry and/or 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2013 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team. --GrapedApe (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CrazyPaco. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 Michigan Wolverines football team. Take a look at some of the other individual college football games that have their own individual Wikipedia article. The First Game, App St.–Michigan, First TV Game, Cumberland–Georgia Tech, "The Play." All of them extremely important, significant, and iconic moments in the history of college football, not just in the history of one individual program or stadium. If this were the first college football night game ever played, I would be willing to accept it as it's own individual article. But, it's not, and it's not even close. I would also add that if the results of the game itself are judged to be extremely important in the context of the Michigan–Notre Dame rivalry, a merge to Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry could also be in order. But, do we really need a new Wikipedia article written every time a night game is played at Michigan Stadium? Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CrazyPaco. Under the Lights II is a marketing gimmick to sell the game. Tedmoseby (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. JohnInDC (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boo Heisey

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

Not seeing anything that demonstrates significant notability. I'm not able to find any references. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like promotion of the author. And where the hell is the significant coverage of this person? 和DITOR E tails 18:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom, an unsuccessful attempt at self promotion. Finnegas (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the campaign is over anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Zanetti

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

The article fails to meet the notability requirements as set out in WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. Australian Matt (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Australian Matt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Australian Matt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No-brainer. Frickeg (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whichever article best describes all the candidates in this race. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you can't just vote redirect without saying where to. LibStar (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete not so subtle advertising for just a poltical candidate running in a very safe seat for the likely next prime minister Tony Abbott. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zanetti lost by a big margin as expected . http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/warr/ LibStar (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like pie

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in December 2011. The vast majority of the edits have been vandalism. There's really no need for it to stay. I am unable to find reliable sources discussing it as a meme. ... discospinster _talk 01:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as yeah, same here. Still, Discospinster, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that ur a h8er. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, did you see this version by User:Colonel Warden? There's some validity to it, so we could go there. Colonel, what do you say? Drmies (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - <takes another sip of haterade> I saw that, but I'm still not convinced. I mean, why pie and not cake? Or tiramisu? Anything could be a non sequitur! ... discospinster _talk 02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's on Urban Dictionary and even Wiktionary, so it does exist. Ansh6 6 6 02:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ansh, I love your sense of humor. Spinster, you want more philosophy out of Wikipedia than it will ever give you. I'd be interested to hear what the Colonel has by way of explanation. For now I'm still of the delete party, where the drinks are more potent. Drmies (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sense of humour? *blank look* Ansh6 6 6 03:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, you said it's on Urban Dictionary so it must exist. That's pretty funny. Like "twerkative"--"talkative but with twerk". Drmies (talk) 03:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, I forgot sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet. Darn. My point is though, someone might search it, since it's out there, so why not redirect it to what it is? Ansh6 6 6 03:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I took an interest in this at prod-patrol because a friend uses this phrase as an email address and I had never understood why. Redirecting to non sequitur (literary device) seemed a good way to resolve the issue. Other possible targets include internet slang and glossary of Internet-related terms. Warden (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Warden did before - this version violates WP:DICDEF and is a vandal-magnet. Ansh6 6 6 02:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Instead, the goal of this project is to create an encyclopedia." Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Videomaniac29 (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't give a rat's ass about what's on Urban Dictionary, because spending half an hour on that site demonstrates that it is, excuse the expression, "unreliable". As for the phrase, I like pie myself, but I don't think that there is anything about this phrase that justifies an encyclopedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I wasn't trying to claim that it was a WP:RS, I know much much better than that. It's clearly in common enough usage to be searched, as stats.grok.se shows; from experience, many slang terms and memes are quite undocumented on anywhere other than very unreliable sources like UD and blogs but spread through the social circles of youth quite rapidly (yes, you'd probably think of me as a kid even though I'm of legal age...). Also, I'm not sure if this is true, but a redirect like this might confuse potential vandals more than deletion without protection (as they'll have a "clean slate" to work with there). Ansh6 6 6 07:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides, this article isn't pie. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like pi Warden (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Weebl and Bob. That's where this expression comes from, the main character often says "I like pie" in a voice that mentally retarded people often use. Dream Focus 13:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have a winner! I'm glad we found someone who really understood this and feel truly enlightened now. Time for some celebratory pie. Mine's a rhubarb tart... Warden (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's where this is from. Wouldn't oppose a rd there, either. Ansh6 6 6 19:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge (if anything is here) to Weebl & Bob. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Q to Warden, Dream Focus, et al: can we please see some evidence that this phrase means one thing or another? Or, in the case of Weebl etc., that the phrase is known because of them and thus ought to be a redirect there? I'm all for rhubarb, but for someone who doesn't know who Weebl is, or what particular context makes this a non sequitur, it's all just leafy greens with no indication that it's, for instance, the stem we're after. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I searched and apparently it was used on Revenge of the Nerds first, and some say they heard it in various places before them. [9] Google for "I like pie" and you get 716,000. I checked the Google news search at the top of this AFD, and see someone had "I like pie" written on the bottom of pies they sold back in the 1950's. People searching for this will most likely be after the Weebl & Bob show though. Watch any of their episodes, they say that exact sentence quite a lot. Dream Focus 23:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Urban Dictionary™ is thattaway ---------> Carrite (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...or merge...or redirect...or anything that isn't keep - Just do anything so that it isn't a couple unsourced lines and pictures of pie. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of ASAP: Fails our guidelines p b p 21:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weebl and Bob, and fully protect that redirect. It's pretty well known for being their catchphrase, after all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend, Carrite, and Purplebackpack89. - tucoxn\^talk 11:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. But of course merge a photo or two into Weebl and Bob since that might be a better place for the gag. Me, on a more wholesome diet myself. Locally grown raw organic fruit...... W Nowicki (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, or soft-redirect to Wiktionary. I considered doing the latter in the first place, but thought there might be enough source material to make this into an encyclopedic article, especially considering that that entry has some quotations from Usenet, suggesting a possibility that the expression predates Weebl and Bob (which is why I wouldn't redirect it there). And it's not a true non sequitur, because it does mean something, even if it's not apparent (which is why I reverted Colonel Warden's edit). B7T (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I asked that this page be unprotected in the first place to allow me to edit it, based in part on the premise that since enough people had been making spurious edits to this particular page to warrant it being protected, it might be a phenomenon worthy of discussion in a real article. B7T (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above arguments. I would not be opposed to a redirect to Weeble and Bob, but a merge would be inappropriate due to the lack of actual sourced information here to actually merge anywhere. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:40, 10 September 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine College of Technology

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

private institutes do not have inherent notability like public institutions. I could find very little coverage for this college except 1 line mentions such as referring to a graduate. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a matter of inherent notability, but rather a strong presumption of notability, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It makes no difference whether the school is public or private. We tend to keep articles about degree-awarding colleges, unless there is an indication that the college doesn't exist and that the article is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Cullen, couldn't have put it better myself. Can't find evidence that the school is not real or not accredited. Ansh6 6 6 07:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bowman Classic

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

This article is about a local golf tournament in Auckland, in which a few local golfers with very high handicaps or little experience are invited to play, as some kind of a tribute to the conservative "Rogernomics" policies of the 1980s-era New Zealand government. I can find no online sources of any kind. This article was prodded and then deprodded, and two off-line sources have now been offered, but they do not appear to be of the sort that could show notability: (1) an article in a local free ~~semi-weekly~~ 3x per week paper, the ~~North Shore Times~~North Shore Times, and (2) a report in the local golf club's quarterly. The article reads like satire, but assuming that it and the proferred sources are on the level, this still seems to fail WP:GNG by a mile. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC) North Shore Times link and frequency corrected --23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As editor who prodded the article - non-notable, local golf tournament. Tewapack (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable sporting event....William 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - How has this joke article managed to survive for 2 years? - SimonLyall (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Tournament has had some coverage in local sports newspapers and is unique in the area for being an amateur competition that does not require club affiliations or membership to be part of. Is notable enough in that generally golfers in the Auckland region know of it and it has an unbroken history of being held each year in the Jan/Feb months. Golfers will sometimes ask their club offices if they know when the next "Bowman" is being held and how to put their name forward for a invitation. Also the North Shore Times is a daily newspaper - your link seems to go to an Australian paper. 202.55.97.42 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link for North Shore Times was incorrect as you say, and I've corrected it. According to the publisher's website, it's a free community paper published three times per week.[10] While I would not automatically discount coverage in such local press, isolated coverage about a small local tournament in such local media doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in the North Shore Times should be used as a confirmation of existence only, in no way should this be used as a determining factor in establishing notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not notable. Adabow (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Eccard

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

Though this article techinically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, this is only because of two appearances about two years ago in the Romanian Liga I and the Romanian Cup. He has done nothing since, and pretty clearly fails general notability. Google search produces only the usual player profiles. In my opinion, this article pretty clearly falls under the part of WP:NSPORT. the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (emphasis theirs).

Furthermore, the article maybe eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G5. The article was created by a sockpuppet in violation of a block. The only edit in the two years since, that wasn't just formatting, was one that updated the lede and infobox to show that he had left Ceahlăul Piatra Neamţ, and removed the squad template. This does not constitute substantial editing in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Players career seems to have reached a professional hiatus. Nothing to suggest GNG. No problems recreating if he moves to another club in an FPL and starts playing regularly. At the moment he has played a grand total of 9 mins of FPL football per Soccerway and that some time ago. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination) amongst others. Giant Snowman 17:30, 6 September 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.