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, part of the Morning277 sockfarm. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article about a PR firm, and the sources it uses, appear to themselves have been created as part of a PR campaign. Google News shows two results for the company's name:

• http://www.ivcpost.com/articles/12717/20130731/app-market-faces-problems-generating-profit.htm - I'm not familiar with this site; it may be an independent source, as it explicitly claims at http://www.ivcpost.com/about-us/ . The story is dated 31 July 2013.

• http://www.business2community.com/mobile-apps/app-market-problems-for-building-profit-0568588 - This is dated 30 July 2013, with Lauren Bringle on the byline. Her stories are listed at http://www.business2community.com/author/lauren-bringle where I see she also wrote a story [1] about Rivalus. I think Rivalus was promoted (just before its merger was announced) by the same PR firm behind the Airomo article.

Now for the sources already in the article: California Business Journal, Vatalyst, and CNN iReport are among the eight sites I listed at

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277#Habitual_behavior as frequently used by the PR firm I believe created this article; there is a distinct possibility that the first two sites may even be operated by the PR firm itself. The story on CaBusinessJournal.org is dated 12 July 2013. Despite the name, it appears California Business Journal may have nothing to do with bizjournals.com. Below the story is the list of "most popular" stories on the site. Shortly after many of these stories appeared, so did a corresponding Wikipedia article; I've added links:

*American Writers and Artists Inc. Creates Opportunities for Freelance Writers

• Social Networking Giant Zorpia Has Firm Grip On China, India
• Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Lemelson Speaks About His Journey Alongside Amvona
• Online Gambling Website Casino.org Keeps Others In Check With Honest Reviews
• Fundology Connects Businesses And Investors Through Innovative Investment Network
• Growing Company NeighborCity Matches Home-Buyers With Agents
• European Binary Investment Company Banc De Binary Flourishes
• Networking Site Kaleio Innovates
• Trustworthy Online Health Information dailyRX's Trademark
• Booming Entertainment Industry Supplied By Growing Agency One Source Talent
• Engage:BDR Develops Extensive Online Marketing Solutions

I believe that all the linked Wikipedia articles were created or updated by Morning277 or its subcontractors.

The Vatalyst article is also dated 12 July 2013. I notice another story, [2] which quotes the Orchid Recovery Center for Women telling us that some teenagers use drugs illegally. Now look at this story [3] on Business2Community, where the Orchid Recovery Center reminds us that cocaine may have harmful side-effects. The byline? Lauren Bringle again.

There's also a story from CNN iReport, dated 12 July 2013 with the byline NewsPost a.k.a. Ray Taylor [4]. A Taylor story is cited in the Wikipedia articles Banc De Binary (which we saw in the California Business Journal's "most popular" list). Another lends its weight to David Stewart (alternative medicine), which is also bolstered by Vatalyst, Investment Underground, and an Andrew Moran piece in Digital Journal.

Zachary Creach wrote about Airomo in TechSling; his story is dated 16 July 2013. Another of Mr. Creach's stories [5] is about TravelShark. I didn't notice whether the TravelShark article cited Creach, but it did cite one or more of the sources I listed in the Morning277 long-term abuse report.

Rounding out the list we have "Fixing the Broken App Ecosystem" by Kaz Frankiewicz. Refreshingly, the byline lets us know that Frankiewicz is with a company called Austin Marketing. The piece is dated 11 July 2013. The URL is not provided because the site has been blacklisted from Wikipedia; the site's "about" page, www.examiner.com/about , shows that content is provided by freelance writers, with little editorial oversight. Frankiewicz also posted a story about the Orchid Recovery Center called "The Benefits of Rehabilitation Programs for Women", and one called "Sports Nutrition Provider RIVALUS Acquired by Nutrivo".

I've detailed how the coverage I found for this company has only been in questionable sources, and how many of those sources cover the same subjects, with Wikipedia articles appearing shortly thereafter; please also note the time-frame: the first story appeared this 11 July, and the Wikipedia article was begun on 10 August. —rybec 21:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. More disturbingly, and as already mentioned, it relies on references to what is quickly appearing to be a series of websites masking promotional intentions with a semblance of legitimacy: Vatalyst, California Business Journal, etc. CNN iReport is a venue in which anyone can write an article about anything and have it appear at first glance to be a CNN article— although CNN tries to make clear that it does not vet anything that appears on its iReport pages and does not give editorial oversight to its content. The recently deleted articles on Search Engine People (discussion here) and Bulb America (discussion here, and which I foolishly opposed) used many of these same kinds of suspicious sources, as does the recently created article on IDrive Inc. which may also warrant a deletion nomination at some point. I have tried contacting Vatalyst directly to inquire about how it selects subject matter for its articles, but have gotten no response (it has been almost two weeks). Is there a clever term yet for these types of pseudo-journalistic brood parasite "cowbirds" laying their eggs in other birds' nests and having their young reared by them? I am not sure that metaphor is quite accurate, but it feels close. KDS4444^Talk 14:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Technically a no consensus but considering the person asked for its deletion and the quality of the article, TNT is needed. Secret ^account 03:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

On behalf of Adrian Piper who requested deletion of this page through Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team and gave me permission to attribute this deletion request to him, I am asking the community to consider this page for deletion. Piper states that this page "falsely claims to offer biographical information" on him and that for that reason it should be deleted. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article suffers from major problems which may afflict its longterm maintenance. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no substance to the article at all. No organized claims to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I understand Ms. Piper's frustration with a badly written article and if what we had was a copyvio, then obviously we need to rewrite this. However, Adrian Piper is a major artist and is thus a public figure. It would be somewhat akin to Lady Gaga asking us to delete her article because she didn't like what was written. I don't mean to overstate this, but we're not talking about a figure of minor note. Adrian Piper is an artist that is part of art history, has volumes written about her, has been in major museum exhibitions and so on. Even if this article were deleted for copyright reasons, a new article would need to be written in its place. She is a high-profile and public figure and cannot expect to not have a Wikipedia presence nor can she expect to control the content of a Wikipedia article, other than to have an expectation of a neutral and well-sourced article per WP:BLP. If you read her bio on her website you can see that not only does she easily pass basic notability requirements for Wikipedia, she has chosen a public life and cannot simply ask to have her Wikipedia article deleted. Yes, this needs a complete rewrite but other than that, this is an obvious keep. freshacconci talk to me 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BLOWITUP and start over. -- œ^™ 12:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT - While what Freshacconci says may be true, the article is in such a bad shape that the best course of action now is toblow it up and start over. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability of the artist is borderline (Google news archive finds a few articles mentioning her but not a lot) and in view of the copyright problems that caused the text of the article to be deleted and her concerns over the quality of its information, I think WP:TNT is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Freshacconci is right about Adrian Piper's importance in contemporary art. Lots and lots of material can be seen at GBooks and GScholar. I'm also a little unclear about how the complaint that the page "falsely claims to offer biographical information" relates to the asserted copyright problem that the material has been copied from her official website. Nevertheless, under Wikipedia policy, it's not apparent that we have much of an alternative to starting over; I looked through the edit history in vain for a reasonable version to which we could revert. Any number of books might be used for the restart: basic bio info, for example, here:[6][7][8] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable stage musician claiming fame for having obscure shows on two microscopic "podcast networks" that barely meet notability standards themselves, and for having been on the Tonight Show once. Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brushwood is on 2 different shows, a Audio Podcast and a IP-TV show. Your argument that these are microscopic networks is a joke. The This Week in Tech network is not microscopic in any sense of the word. Revision3 is a Internet Tevelision network, just as you would compare any of the other TV networks. Hasteur (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you delete based on the above comment then you have to delete the Barack Obama entry because he was a nobody Chicago politician who got elected to congress one time and never voted on any legislation and somehow ended up as a do nothing President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.151.93 (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --FiveIron (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm going to see a lot of sockpuppetry in here, but the subject is not notable, the article and its main contributor seems to have COI, which may afflict its neutrality and may compromise its maintenance. Article fails WP:BIO and also fails WP:NWEB. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that we'll see sockpuppetry? Perhaps Brushwood just has a very engaged audience? Would you cry foul on engaged audience members of Bill O'Riley standing up and advocating against deletion? Please indicate which editor you feel is COI to Brushwood or strike your assertion. I've listened to the show myself and do not recognize any of the editors so far. I as an editor and listener did reach out after the page was REFUNDED and asked Brushwood to comment on the talk page so that we can try to improve the article via the approved method of subject helping correct/improve via suggestions. Hasteur (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And go ahead eduemoni and challenge me on being a sock puppet. Subject has been on many different talk shows like Jennny Jones. Significant artist in the digital media space (This Week in Tech network doing upwards of 10 million in revenue a year with NSFW show being their #3 show and Revision3's Scam School doing many video recordings a year. Just because these aren't traditional broadcast media doesn't make them microscopic podcast networks. Would you make The Nerdist a microsocopic podcast network? Being invited to host one of the standing fun houses at the Universal Floridia "Nights of Terror" is also indicative of GNG. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Comment And further, Brushwood has been invited to perform his magic act at many different college campuses as part of a student activities event. This is indicative in my mind that Brushwood easily clears the GNG threshold. Would it be good to have more and independent sources? Sure, but Deletion's not Cleanup. Now I assert that Orangemike's hostile tagging and then taking this immediately to AfD after it had recently come back via REFUND is nothing more than POINTY behavior. Surely there's an unreferenced BLP that needs more attention than this... Hasteur (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Hasteur, I did not by any chance declared that you were a sockpuppet, but the article doesn't establish GNG, there is lack of significant coverage, if the campuses would have interviewed him and posted in the internet, which in fact they didn't, being a successful and rich person, or tallented does not establish and assert notability. [9], [10], there is only mentions, podcasts, social profiles and interview with non notable shows. The article and subject may have potential, but I think it is too early WP:NOTNOW . And Hauster you are not even the article's main contributor, the article has several intrinsic details which a person close to him or himself would have written, since the article lacks references. And I've search and found that the article has accurate details about the subject.Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Brushwood would qualify (or not) under WP:ENTERTAINER. Probably #2, significant cult following. The fact he has appeared on major national TV shows such as The Tonight Show (twice) suggests a following strong enough to convince the producers of those shows to let him on. Plus his own shows through major channels. At the same time we need to satisfy WP:GNG because right now there is basically no sourcing. Some suggestions include SecularStudents, HuffingtonPost, GeekSphere, TVWeek, PBS, Collegian. These are individually weak sources, though appropriate for the subject, but in whole I believe they add up to support WP:ENTERTAINER #2 and they contain significant biographical coverage to write a Wikipedia article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER, absolutely does not meet WP:GNG. GregJackP Boomer! 03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG. Not currently included in the article is that the subject has had a #1 comedy album on the Billboard charts, and was a co-creator of a book which reached the top 5 of the iTunes book charts. Billboard, NPR's On The Media, Gizmodo. Brendonsmall (talk) 07:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Brendonsmall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You have raised a good point, however these are not significant, he would have passed WP:MUSICBIO if he had a single or album in any significant chart, but he is an entertainer not a musician, he doesn't apply to MUSICBIO, and he also fails WP:CREATIVE. I think the subject has wp:potential, but lacks enough sufficient and significant coverage. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 10:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eduemoni Please strike your SPA assertion against Brendonsmall. It's entirely possible that they could have been an IP address or not even an editor for a long time and know the Rules for Deletion discussions. Furthermore, I don't see a deliberate attempt to sway consensus by invoking the "Arugments to avoid in AfD discussions" list so if anything your behavior seems deliberately antagonistic, Bite-y, and not collegial. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You, sire, offended me, first of all, he is an editor which has only two edits post AfD creation, I didn't bite him, secondly I'm not disrupting the discussion to make a point, you own me an apology, your words does not truly reflect my actions, and third, stick to the discussion, avoid bringing personal offenses or matters into an AfD, if you can't illustrate a point, refrain yourself from the discussion, I have made mine, the subject is non notable and I have also gave the reason why. Any source provided so far is passing, trivial and non significant. You also said that you asked Brushwood personally to come to the talk page for suggestion and improvement, which is why I stated a COI, the article has many unsourced statements which seems purely promotional, it violates NPOV, it is not as of yet unambiguously promotional, this could be improved, but his notability is the reason why his article right now shouldn't be maintained. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eduemoni Obviously you're only reading into your own viewpoint into this discussion and only want to delete a page that meets GNG. WP:COISELF and WP:COIU are very clear how to invite subjects to help correct issues with their page. The goal is to improve the page, not bar people who probably have the best collection of sources from even helping. If it were in order to {{whale}} you, I'd do it right now. Since you're refusing, and I'm a editor in good standing, I'm striking your SPA assertion. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I restored the SPA tag. The editor in question has exactly 2 edits, both to this AfD discussion, and clearly meets the definition of a single purpose account. It is up to the closing admin to evaluate whether a) he is a SPA, and b) how much weight to give to his arguments if he is a SPA. Being labelled as a SPA does not negate his comments or position, it merely flags it as an issue for the closing admin to consider. GregJackP Boomer! 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hasteur, I didn't bite the editor, and even though COISELF and COIU guide on how to invite subject, the article fails NPOV, thus it has conflict of interest, statements such as "highly produced episodes of Scam School on Revision3", "best known for his display of bizarre magic and fire-eating performances" are both unsourced and highly promotional. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He meets GNG for coverage on his involvement with a top-selling ebook (as seen on Gizmodo, appearances on The Tonight Show and CNN, his TED Talk, his high-profile podcasts Scam School and NSFW on Revision3 and TWiT.tv (both of which have been featured as iTunes Top Podcasts), and has been seen by over 70 million people on Indonesian TV. --PatrickD (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article needs attention, but don't think is worthy of deletion. Notability is established, but some changes are needed in order to keep NPOV and include properly sourced information. (→Zachary) 07:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How can we include proper sources if I brought to this discussion that the subject lacks substantial coverage, he has no significant coverage so far from reliable sources. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Food Network Star (season 8). The history is persevered in case anyone would like to merge content over. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I cannot see how someone who competed on the show, but was not even a finalist, is notable in the absence of other grounds for notability (the other non-finalist in the season who has an article, Nikki Martin has possible other grounds for notability.) The sources are either local or mentions, as would be expected. (I'm not all that sure about finalists either, although the winners are clearly notable) DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What's wrong with just merging the article to Food Network Star (season 8)? (And I'm not one to throw around WP:OTHERSTUFF, but...all the contestants from American Idol generally have articles.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Food Network Star (season 8). -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly Merge Celebrity chef and restaurateur. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Avenue (Washington, D.C.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I found no significant coverage for this street. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I would imagine every main street in central Washington would have no question of notability. The primary riverfront avenue in Washington. Un-surprisingly it took only a few seconds to find significant coverage.[11][12][13][14][15][16]--Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with Oakshade, and with a little expansion this page would be good. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blast fishing. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The topic of this page is a duplicate of Blast fishing. This page should redirect there and its contents should be moved there if considered notable. Transcendence (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without merge. Most of the content fails WP:NOTNEWS (and are covered here, anyways), while the rest is a duplicate. Ansh666 19:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This is a misleading AFD. A fish bomb is a type of bombed used by terrorists in Libya. It has nothing to do with fishing. This is part of a pattern of Transcendence to attempt to delete articles about terrorist or terrorist-like incidents, and a pattern of stalking and deleting articles created or improved by this editor (myself) Redhanker (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a misleading AfD, it's a misleading article. A fish bomb is a type of bomb used by fishermen in blast fishing, but adopted by soldiers and then terrorists. Ansh666 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article contains the line "Prior to the war they were commonly used by poor fisherman to kill or disable fish in order to catch them easily." Furthermore, the title is Fish Bomb. If this article isn't about fish bombs, then it shouldn't be named "Fish Bomb" as it has nothing to do with fish bombs which typically refers to bombs used in blast fishing. If you really claim this isn't about fish bombs, then this article should be a part of something like Improvised explosive device. Transcendence (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom and Ansh666 - a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the very least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. William Stinde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability, clearly fails WP:Academic, self-published self-promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- does not "clearly fail[] WP:Academic" by any means, since Presidents (etc.) of universities (etc.) are specifically singled out as a notable position. But in this case, the institution is an unaccredited school less than 13 years old and he was president for less than a year (source: his LinkedIn profile). While the criteria for major institution has generally been broad -- most accredited institutions with any history of existence has been included -- and occasionally even interim presidents, provosts, etc., have been kept on this criterion, it is not so broad as to include Stinde's service. I can find nothing else that would justify a keep vote; thus delete. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support. And yes, that's what I meant by "clearly fails". The criterion reads "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". This person has not done that. He is a clear fail on that criterion, and doesn't satisfy any of the others either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Vanity article created by the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. The university presidency is not enough (it's clearly not a "major academic institution") and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Olympic athletes are notable, period. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not Notable, he was involved with the Olympics and a sexual abuse of a minor incident, however, media coverage including Google search, news, and books etc., does not show significant amounts of coverage to warrant an article. Does not meet notability guidelines. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There seems to be enough to establish that he was a three-time Olympic athlete, which should confer automatic notability here, even if UK sources from the 1960s and 1970s are difficult to locate. Coverage of the sexual abuse often includes mention of his past Olympics participation, thus provides secondary coverage of his sporting career. Dl2000 (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We invariably keep articles on anyone who has competed in the Olympics (per WP:NOLYMPICS, which is a notability guideline). No reason to make an exception here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OLYMPICS which reflects long standing consensus that Olympic athletes are presumed notable. In this case, we have coverage in reliable sources available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep A 3 time Olympian certainly passes WP:NSPORTS.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly meets OLYMPICS and NSPORTS. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A 1 sentence stub biography that doesn't tell us if the subject is alive/dead, without any sort of sourcing is not appropriate. Would have tagged with BLPPROD to force a sourcing (since the presumption is that a Biographical subject is living) but had to settle for PROD based on the fact that the article was created before the BLPPROD regime went into effect. Prodded on Unreferenced stub biography, but was deprodded by Necrothesp citing deprod; if he was a general then he is notable. Deprod did not address concern so now I'm calling the question as the article is so far below the minimum level for a Biography that we must delete until sources can materialize. I specifically note that a Unsourced template has been on this page since January 2008. Surely a source could have been found in over 5 years. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added a reference and his dates. He died in 1960. Took me all of sixty seconds to find this information (WP:BEFORE). And as a general he meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. You only used a reference listing barest minimum information about start and stop of their career and some events in it
2. You didn't cite anyting, only slapped a "biography" link at the bottom
3. WP:BEFORE is a guideline and not a rule.
4. Only looked for a way to get it to pass via WP:SOLDIER, completely ignoring the prose above which reads

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they...

Ergo, all you've done is throw a canister of die into the water to muddy the issue. I still stand by my assertion that there is not enough content here to validly assert that the individual is notable in addition to not having enough sources. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In addition to passing WP:SOLDIER, references: [17], [18], [19], [20]. In addition, an alternative romanisation of his name is Hsu Yuan-chuan: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, remember that non-Western generals are something we need more articles about, not less. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Before is only a guideline. Now why is it that I have to threaten deletion for this improvement to occur? Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG is also "only a guideline". I might point out that AfD is not for cleanup, "No effort is being made" is not a reason to nominate for deletion, and if there is such a great concern over it needing improvement, doing it yourself can be fun. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But Notability is a core rule, not really a guideline. I only happened on the article when I was strolling randomly through articles and happened on such a bad article. I know I don't have the sources or the expertise to fix it, so griping at me to fix it is not productive, however stimulating you to fix it is productive as annother article has been saved. How else should we have handled this? By letting the Biography lie dormant and sub standard for annother 5 years? Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this AfD. The purpose I had in mind of stimulating improvement to the article or deletion has been satisfied. Hasteur (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antony J. Ballard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable chef lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. Vanity page/advertisement appears to have been written by COI. Article author cites subject's working for celebrities as reason for his notability. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage includes: Westchester Magazine [25] and The News-Times[26]. Are these two enough to pass the GNG guideline? I believe so because the sources are in-depth and contain enough biographical details to write an article with. The original author is a newbie and is making effort to edit based on what is best for Wikipedia (though still needs help). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Green Cardamom's findings, meets GNG. 86.136.93.185 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per the sources above listed by User:Green Cardamom. Promotional tone can be addressed via copy editing. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did a WP:TNT and re-wrote based on information in the reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability - zero. Very brief and very insignificant news coverage, mostly in connection with the person he "tweeted" about. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Leo711 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets part 3 of WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Both his books have been widely reviewed and satisfy this criteria and meet WP:NBOOK; see my post here for references for his other book. In addition to this, he's also won some awards for his work, and has received coverage because of his tweets. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just three days ago he was whoever. Now all of a sudden he's a recognized author? I don't think so. His books are not widely known and he's definitely not Mark Twain. Right now Wikipedia has become the primary source of information about him - we have the most detailed article on the subject. If you want to keep him mentioned, we may move it to Assange's article. Leo711 (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets part 3 of WP:AUTHOR. This is a well known author, I've added three reviews for The Swamp (NYT, NPR, USN&WR) and his second book The New New Deal has reviews in The Economist, Bloomberg, Reason, etc.. there are probably many more than this. Never heard of the twitter thing the nom mentions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable author. The Twitter controversy is not the main claim to notability, just some recent controversy that finally got someone here to notice him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly. Even if the Twitter controversy were in fact his path to notability, that still makes him notable. Notability isn't a "but for" test of causation, but in fact a question of whether people take note. Similarly, Brandi Chastain's notability stems 95% from ripping her shirt off. A large number of people have indeed taken note, and that interest goes beyond simply describing the incident to describing their life and career. Anyway, even if that's 95% of their notability, I would argue that on a basic notability test the other 5% makes him notable independently. A senior national correspondent for one of the most prominent news outlets in the U.S., both his position and his body of work are substantial. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while I believe the article could use some expansion and work, this is a keeper as he is an award-winning journalist and for all the above reasons, with which I agree. Crtew (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. While this article should not be a coatrack for the twitter incident, being a prominent Time journalist alone is sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not established. I didn't find any reliable sources on this guy. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I too could find no WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - Did not pass basic WP:GNG. Only source is facebook, which is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SefBau (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software Developer's Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article about a magazine which gives no indication of notability. Bringing this to AfD as PROD has been declined by author. Peridon (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. In fact, not even an assertion of notability (note that the author has also -inappropriately- removed a {{db-web}} tag). --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No claims of notability in the article itself, and no indications of notability to be found by searching for references to this journal. It does show up in a handful of citations in Google scholar, but only a handful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability shown. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unclear what would make him notable. The Banner talk 12:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have served in important sounding positions! References seem good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkywaytraveller (talk • contribs) 13:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quack? The Banner talk 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm the creator of the page. Maybe a few more references and more detailing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshvardhanbhatnagar (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a notable Indian state officer [27]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article mentions, Bhatnagar served in the position of Secretary to the Government of India in several federal ministries. I should clarify that the position of Secretary signifies the senior most federal civil servant/ bureaucrat in a particular ministry. Further, Bhatnagar also served as Chairman of Prasar Bharti which is India's largest television and radio broadcaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshvardhanbhatnagar (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You seem to be new to Wikipedia and also seem to have first hand knowledge of Mr. Arun Bhatnagar. Please note that holding various posts as being part of IAS Officer is not really a notable thing. He had to be on some post and so he was. Many government officers get transferred after a certain period and we can't have articles on all of them because at the time of retirement they have been to 20-30 positions. In case, you have any information about Mr. Bhatnagar winning any awards or recognitions, maybe some newspaper wrote an article about him on his ways of work or bringing something innovative or something similar then that could be helpful. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dharmadhyaksha, Yes I am new to Wiki and also know the subject personally. Thanks for your comments. I should like to point out that Bhatnagar didn't just hold any government position but headed several federal Ministrie(s)/ department(s) as a civil servant. Furthermore, the government appointed him senior positions post his retirement from the civil service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshvardhanbhatnagar (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to be a senior enough civil servant to merit inclusion. The senior civil servant in a ministry of a major country is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean and Keep: Being senior civil servant of India, the subject is notable. Dharmadhyaksha; You are right. Just being an IAS will not bring notability but here being a Secretary of a Ministry, he is notable for sure. However the article requires some cleaning. -- Bharathiya (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sumo stable with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This stable has produced 1 yokozuna and 3 sekiwake. It is one of the most successful Sumo Stables ever, for it's relative short history. Musashimaru is the first foreign born Yokozuna to be a sumo stable master.

No - the stable it split from did. Notability is not inherited.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point, I have written to the new incarnation of the Musashigawa stable to ask them the answer to this. Don't know if they will respond though.--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for this page being up for deletion has more to do with the ignorance of RHaworth than anything else. If articles about particular sports are to be deleted, they should be deleted by people who know something about the sport, not by RHaworth and others who have little or no interest in the sport.
• Finally, RHaworth and people like him need to be reprimanded. If not, then a new policy about deletion should be drawn up. Eg: If part of a topic, which gets about 1,000 hits per day, is to be deleted, it should only be deleted by people who have knowledge of that topic. If sumo was getting about 1 hit per month, fine delete it and other topics that are in reference to it. But Sumo is getting about half a million hits a year. Therefore the only people who should police it, should be people who know something about it, like User:Pawnkingthree

Leveni sep 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveni (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • First, please mind WP:NPA. Secondly, Wikipedia does not work that way. We're "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", not "the walled garden you have to be an expert with credentials to edit". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the minefield of determining the validity of the credentials and the connection between user and same.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is for the deletion policy. Not for making new articles. In my mind FourTildes original (2013) page should never have been deleted last month. Yet there was no one to come to his defense. Having 'experts' (in inverted commas) would be a way for double checking if an article should be deleted or not. --Leveni (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Putting aside the personal squabble here, it is clear the stable passes WP:ORG, even if it is separated from the previous Musashigawa stable (which it seems, judging from the stable's own home page, the stable itself does not do: [28]). Given that it is the revival of a renowned old stable and is headed by a famous former yokozuna, there has been sufficient coverage in the major press in Japan, such as: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34] or [35]. More could be found. Further, while this should probably be checked with WikiProject Sumo, one could presume, given the extreme difficulty involved in founding a professional sumo stable, that it is possible to argue all such stables are inherently notable. While I think this stable has enough independent reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG criteria, perhaps creating such a precedent is in order. Michitaro (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there are lot's of Sumo Beya that are not note worthy. Many can be found [here]--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said professional sumo. Your link is for amateur sumo yokozuna. In Japan, the only professional sumo stables are those approved by the Nihon Sumo Kyokai, which only allows them in extremely limited cases (toshiyorikabu, etc.). Many other sports WikiProjects presume or directly state that professional teams (e.g., WikiProject_Cycling) or teams that play in national cups (WikiProject_Football) are by definition notable. I was wondering whether WikiProject Sumo has a similar guideline. Of course, other non-professional teams/heya could be considered notable on a case by case basis using WP:ORG. Thus the Nichidai sumo club (jp:日本大学相撲部), for instance, which has produced the vast majority of amateur yokozona (and later professionals) from the college ranks, most likely is notable enough to have its own article. Michitaro (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My example was to give contrast between notable stables and non-notable stables. I wasn't contradicting you, I was just giving an example of something not note worthy. I could create a list of all non 大相撲 beya, including all the women sumo, amateur, semi-professional, university, high-school and junior-high school. But would such a list be of interest and would it be note worthy?

OK, but as I said, even some of the sumobu mentioned in your list of amateur, jitsugyodan and daigaku yokozuna could be notable per WP:ORG. Also, it is not impossible to argue that creating a list of certain amateur groups (for instance, daigaku or jitsugyodan sumobu) can also be meaningful in some cases and be justified under WP:LISTN. In that case, each entry in the list need not be independently notable itself. But this is a discussion WikiProject Sumo should probably undertake. For the time being, to reiterate, Musashigawa I think passes notability criteria both because it itself fits WP:ORG and because all professional sumo stables are likely inherently notable. Whether there are non-notable sumo organizations is not an immediately relevant issue. (By the way, please sign your comments. This AfD is getting hard to read.)Michitaro (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
• 1 It is a branch of one of the most successful sumo stables in history, was begun by one of the most well-known still living yokozuna in history, who is only the second foreigner to become yokozuna, and only the second foreign born retired wrestler to start his own stable.
• 2 This is all because he wanted to continue the tradition of of the Musashigawa name when the new head changed the name of the stable.
• 3 It is also the only new stable established in the sumo world in 6 years, quite a rarity.
• 4 This stable also has a corresponding article in Japanese, as of course, it's notability in Japan is unquestioned, and the simple fact that this article is in English should not be to it's detriment, as even if it did have top division wrestlers it would still be just as unknown to the average English speaking Westerner, which would disqualify essentially every stable listed on the list of sumo beya from notability.

The western equivalent of this would be "new" professional sports team made up of largely rookie players that had no article. It was also the only stable in the list of sumo beya that did not have an article, but this was only because of someone not yet getting around to it until now. The unfortunate fact that it as yet has no top division wrestlers is only due to it's newness and it has many other reasons for notability.

For the sake of fairness, I should also state that a month or two back, I did start this article, which was summarily deleted by RHaworth when he came upon the speedy deletion tag, hence his continuing interest in this dispute. Our exchange about this can be seen here: User_talk:RHaworth/2013_Jul_22#Speedy_deletion_of_Musashigawa_stable. Note: You need to click "show" to read my entire defence as RHaworth must have found me too wordy. The article I originally started, and which RHaworth quickly deleted, leaving me no access to the text I wrote, is here: User:FourTildes/sandbox_6 (RHaworth did comply with my request and gave me access to the article's text after I requested it.) FourTildes (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also for the sake of fairness, It would be better if FourTildes was credited with being the creator of the page, as it was he who first created it, and that credit was then unfairly taken away from him.--Leveni (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where else to write this, but as the article still exists, and has yet to be speedily deleted (as it was within minutes the first time around with RHaworth) I am going to paste in the material I originally wrote from the sandbox link above (which is more detailed and referenced than Leveni's article info), leave the speedy deletion tag of course, and then move to article to the more appropriate title of Musashigawa stable (2013) - which will improve on it's notability I believe. FourTildes (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep decent coverage for meeting GNG. Cavarrone 06:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's extremely rare for a foreign born sumo wrestler to establish his own stable; Musashimaru is only the second in history to have done so after Takamiyama Daigoro. Multiple sources exist as per Michitaro. Incidentally there is consensus at WikiProject Sumo that sumo stables are notable, and every active stable has an article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Consensus at the relevant WikiProject is that Sumo stables are inherently notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The references provided below prove the person is a notable journalist. In addition, no delete vote. (non-admin closure) Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Uncited article promoting a non-notable Indian. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be an award-winning Indian anchor journalist on a national channel. I added a source for the 2011 Exchange4media News Broadcasting Awards, in which Razdan won for "Best Anchor", the (offline) source says:

• The winners were chosen by a jury comprising of the most eminent personalities from the media and TV news media industry. Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in-Chief, The Indian Express was Chairman of the jury. The other jury members included: Adam Roberts, South Asia Bureau Chief, The Economist, Alok Mehta, Chief Editor, Nai Dunia, Amal Allana, Chairperson, National School of Drama, R Sukumar, Managing Editor, Mint , Amit Jain, Country Director, AkzoNobel India, Naina Lal Kidwai, Country Head, HSBC India,Najeeb Jung, Vice Chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, Soli J Sorabjee, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, Sonal Dabral, Creative Head Asia & Chairman Bates 141 India ,Suhel Seth, Managing Partner of Counselage India & Founder of Equus, Sunit Tandon, Director General, Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Yashwant Deshmukh, Founder-Owner of Communications Consultancy YRD Media Network.
• The Weekend Leader calls her "A household name now".[36]
• Also: this journalist is currently in the middle of a nation-wide controversy involving British MP Barry Gardiner which has resulted in a wide criticism among section of Indians - mention of the controversy is being aggressively deleted from the article (see article history) and at the same time the article is AfD'. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She is national journalist, who had covered a lot of sensitive issues. Notable recently for her interview with Barry Gardiner. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Interesting to note that when the article was AfDed, it already had claims of being a journalist, that too for a English news channel and not local cable TV. It also had claims of two awards. But still the nominator's rationale calls the subject "non-notable Indian" and not "non-notable journalist". WP:Systemic bias much? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per biography coverage, received an award that went to 7 leading journalists, and has been called a popular television anchor. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hero of Byzantium. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I think this page is a content fork of Hero of Byzantium, and should therefore be merged with the latter. See e.g. fr:Héron de Byzance, which lists "Hero the Younger" as another name of Hero of Byzantium, and ca:Heró el Jove, which redirects. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 10:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment G-Books search result suggests that it could be possibly developed separately. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep separately, he has an entry in Britannica and is mentioned in many books as an important medieval surveyor. The article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a mention of the treatise on geodesy (note that the edition cited in the article explicitly calls the author Héron de Byzance) to Hero of Byzantium, as suggested by nom, and Oops, I see that that treatise is already mentioned in the article. Redirect to Hero of Byzantium. I see no evidence that the material in the old sources linked in Vejvančický's Google Books search refers to anyone other than the topic of our Hero of Byzantium article. Deor (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- The article appears to be a duplicate. The merge should be limited to transferring the "literature" section to the target. His inclusion in the 1911 Britannia measn that we sould not be deleting: their notability criteria will have been tighter than WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the recent edition (PDF avalable here) and the French study cited in the "Édition" and "Bibliographie" sections of the French WP article look to be preferable to the 19th-century stuff the "Literature" section of our article picks up from Britannica 1911. I doubt that merging that section would be helpful. Deor (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hero of Byzantium per Deor. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no-one else supports deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 10:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

AnupMehra ^✈ 08:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ??? Why do you want the article to be deleted, Anupmehra? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, it is a sourced article about a village/commune in France. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep (no reason given like nominator). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Article has improved since last visit. Earlier it was an one line article with a single mis-leading reference. As, It has been now expanded and the unreliable reference has been replaced with multiple reliable sources, AfD tag must be removed. AnupMehra ^✈ 09:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make any difference. Such an article will always be notable, lack of content or sources or not. Most municipality-level divisions are currently short stubs on wikipedia, most of France in fact. Expansion is the way forward, trust me, they're all notable. If you want something expanded, please ask, otherwise you'll find a swift close like this..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Intent of creation of this article is unambiguous self-promoting PR puff spam with contents predominantly supported by referencing to wikia.com to create an illusion of notability. The user page of the continuous contributor makes it painfully obvious that this is a spam page, which describes the user's role as "web manager of SCI" Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Many sources are paywalled, so it's difficult to ascertain the depth-of-coverage in those, but the overall topic appears to meet Wikipedia's threshold of notability: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Objection to this article is that it does not appear to be created to advance the encyclopedia, but as a self-serving public relations product to increase publicity by "web manager of Solar Cookers International". Snippets of fairly trivial coverage do not appear to make this company generally notable. Other content fork articles, such as now removed Solar for All was filled completely and referencing back to self-generated contents to exhibit it in the way the subject wants it exhibited. This article is almost entirely composed of promotionalism and I see it as beyond salve. I find that its best deleted and started from scratch so it starts from a objective, neutral ground rather than modified to try to add sources around promotional contents and maintain the overall bias Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Many sources being paywalled does not mean that they are automatically "snippets" of information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Probably satisfies WP:GNG but needs to be rewritten to remove promotional tone and corporate spam. Maybe it would be better to start from scratch but I believe that it is also possible to improve the existing article. Beagel (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Possibly so. Currently the contents are selectively chosen and use company's materials that only cast them in a positive light. If editors were to go around and start adding references to existing contents, it would solve the verifiablility aspect, but systemic undue bias would remain. I think this is why it would be more conducive to start from scratch as I feel that it would encourage well rounded article if someone chose to recreate it and discourage spammers from creating PR spam that spurts off and leaving all the grunt work of sourcing around their PR huff puff.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG. Promotional tone means that the article needs copy editing. Johnfos (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not just the tone The contents are fundamentally promotional with very little usable materials that aren't sourced form company's self-authored and wikia.com materials. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per sources. I have access to paywall sources, and can send them to nom if you would like to begin working on rewriting. BTW there is nothing wrong with citing material from a company source when reporting on non-controversial basic factual information, see Policy first sentence WP:PRIMARY. Also there may be nothing negative to report about the organization, that doesn't make it out of balance just because they are free of scandal and controversy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication that there is any genuine rivalry between these two teams. The one reference does not mention anything. This is just a regular game between two teams that happen to be based a long way apart. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable "rivalry". The actual content amounts to trivia that would be better included in the league or club pages. The article seems to be a vehicle to collate vast swathes of stats. (WP:OR - the clubs actually get on very well) Hack (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly nothing more than trivia. As per nom. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete what a ridiculous basis for an article, simply a long distance is pure WP:SYNTH that this equates to a notable sporting rivalry. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry. GiantSnowman 09:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. - Nominator (who is Russian and clearly has no knowledge of the subject) failed to follow the WP:BEFORE rules and blindly nominated several related articles with zero talk page discussion. The subject passes WP:GNG but will require some additional work including the addition of more sources. If the nominator had brought the subject up on the talk page, work could have been done on the article to improve sourcing. Upon reading this AFD I myself found a half-dozen reliable sources that cover the subject at hand to help and would have helped clarify that this subject does pass WP:GNG to the nominator, and I'm sure more would have been found should a more thorough search been undertaken. The only thing that matters is passing WP:GNG and this article does that, even though the sources aren't adequately edited at the moment. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please avoid personal attacks in your remarks such as an editor "clearly has no knowledge of the subject", particularly when your preceding comment about me being Russian is wrong! Please also explain the logic behind the comment that the article passes GNG without adequate sources? If there are not adequate sources then it doesn't pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks should be avoid of the nominator as per WP:ADHOM. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability here. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find a single source that mentions "The Distance Derby" let alone provides it with significant coverage. While it's a cool name, I can't help but suspect that it's original research/original thought. Stalwart111 12:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can easily find instances of this name being used: [48], [49], [50], so it clearly a nickname for games played between the two teams. What I do not see is any sort of in-depth coverage of these two teams having a rivalry or any other substance that would justify an article. What I see is essentially something that would be a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, look at that! Your google was working much better than mine! Stalwart111 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UFL football transfers summer 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested prod. No indication that this series of transfers which does not even cover a whole year / season has received any significant coverage as a whole to warrant an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, non-notable and incomplete list. GiantSnowman 09:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These transfers should be in respective clubs' articles.Lsmll 03:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Watson family. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

His family collectively has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, but he himself doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Louise Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both. Not individually notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notability is not inherited and per nom. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't these be instead merged to an article on the Watson family as a whole? postdlf (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Watson family as Postdlf suggests; these are, at minimum, legitimate search terms for the family article, and at the very least, the external link Watson Family Photographic Archive should be added to the family article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sounds good. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No references and no indication of notability. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There seem to be some articles which discuss the "syndrome" ([51][52][53][54]), but I'm not convinced that a standalone list is warranted. The term is described within Chuck's entry at Happy Days#Minor so I'd consider a redirect at most.  Gong show 20:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above. Notable, even if not by much. Redirecting to the character is not a good idea -the TV show phenomenon is named after him, but it is distinct from the character, who is just the first noted occurrence of it. -- cyclopia^speak! 12:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation This term is almost certainly originated with TV Tropes [55]. It's not uncommon for hip reporters to use TV Tropes memes in their reporting. TV Tropes is a virus of sorts, infecting Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the term is irrelevant. What matters is its actual coverage, not where they picked it up. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's why I didn't vote Delete. Just an observation. BTW the earliest use of Chuck cunningham syndrome I could find is from an April 2004 Toronto Star (Tanya Workman, "Canada vs. the world Sister, sister", Toronto Star, 04/24/2004 - Quote: "Last week in TV Talkback, Eirik Knutzen wrote about the "Chuck Cunningham" syndrome - where a TV sibling disappears to their bedroom"). TV Tropes opened in April 2004. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I retract the above, based on the previous AfD it appears this term arose in the 1990s, predating TV Tropes. It's difficult to source but opinion seems to be it was a shorthand used in online forums about TV shows for answering FAQ's about missing characters. Interesting discussion in the 2006 AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand what has this TV Tropes thing to do with this AfD. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete passing mentions != in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak delete. I actually enjoy reading lists like this, but the problem with reading them on Wikipedia is that there hasn't been a reliable source presented to verify that "Chuck Cunningham syndrome" is the name of this apparent phenomenon. The first AfD I recall about this topic goes all the way back to 2006, but then it evolved into this. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 19. Snotbot  t • c »  06:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a routine occurrance in series, and there is no indication that this is the usual term, or that it is generally discussed in connection with this particular individual. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- No sources, and has been deleted twice before. "A fictional charatcer in a TV show stops appearing in that show" is not the basis of an encyclopedia article, and listing a bunch of examples doesn't make it one. Reyk _YO! 05:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close, no result. There's a speedy deletion criterion, WP:G5, that applies to articles created by banned users. Without deciding whether these a worthy of G5 or not, this is not the forum for determining whether some article or another is subject to G5. Bring it up on WP:SPI or something, I don't even know. Other than that, if any of these deserve to be deleted for substantive reason, please nominate them individually. A group nom like this is utterly unhelpful. -- Y not? 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minera S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Madeco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Inversiones Aguas Metropolitanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

CAP S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Banco Santander-Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Banmédica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Brazilian natural gas companies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Votorantim Celulose e Papel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Banco Nossa Caixa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tecnologia Automotiva Catarinense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article and the other articles I will be listing were created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. The master and their socks have created over 50 articles that have been deleted. I'm looking through all of the articles they have created for those that (1) have not been significantly edited by editors other than socks and sock IPs, (2) either have no references or lack references that establish notability, and (3) for which I have found no reliable sources indicating notability. Some are listed on international stock exchanges, however WP:LISTED is not, by itself, considered to be sufficient for notability. I am not confident that I can determine if these companies are regionally notable, so it may be some of them can be rescued. In any case, because these socks have produced so many non-notable articles, they require scrutiny by the community. This is Part 3, Part 1 is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minera Autlan and Part 2 is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIDERPERU. I am One of Many (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or merge. I suggest a merge discussion be opened. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Land Shark (Saturday Night Live) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Refs provided (and present in Google News) fail to meet WP:GNG. Already adequately summarized at Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1975–1976. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Comment. This was one of the best known and most often referenced of the classic SNL skits. A few sources are already provided. As noted on the talk page, a very long list of "popular culture" references has been removed from the article, and under current editing practices those removals were almost entirely correct. But there are a few items on that list that might actually deserve inclusion (for example, the connections between the skit and (1) Jimmy Buffett's Land Shark Lager and (2) the Columbus Landsharks, which connections appear to be mentioned in a few (paywalled) news articles). So I think deletion is not appropriate here. A merge and redirect to Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1975–1976 is OK, allowing the incorporation of a limited amount of additional detail, and preserving the history for anyone who should ever feel inclined to find more rigorous sourcing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I trimmed the popular culture list of things that may be in doubt, and restored what was left to the article. [56] Ample news coverage of the time mentioned this. Lot of reliable sources mentioning the land shark also, lot to sort through, but it shows its cultural significance. [57] Dream Focus 16:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dream Focus. Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close, no result. There's a speedy deletion criterion, WP:G5, that applies to articles created by banned users. Without deciding whether these a worthy of G5 or not, this is not the forum for determining whether some article or another is subject to G5. Bring it up on WP:SPI or something, I don't even know. Other than that, if any of these deserve to be deleted for substantive reason, please nominate them individually. A group nom like this is utterly unhelpful. -- Y not? 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIDERPERU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agroindustrial Pomalca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Índice General de la Bolsa de Valores de Lima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mantex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

MANPA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Envases Venezolanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Corimon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Socovesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calichera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SM-Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sigdo Koppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ripley S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article and the other articles I will be listing were created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. The master and their socks have created over 50 articles that have been deleted. I'm looking through all of the articles they have created for those that (1) have not been significantly edited by editors other than socks and sock IPs, (2) either have no references or lack references that establish notability, and (3) for which I have found no reliable sources indicating notability. Some are listed on international stock exchanges, however WP:LISTED is not, by itself, considered to be sufficient for notability. I am not confident that I can determine if these companies are regionally notable, so it may be some of them can be rescued. In any case, because these socks have produced so many non-notable articles, they require scrutiny by the community. This is Part 2, Part 1 is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minera Autlan. I am One of Many (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Part 3 is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minera S.A..

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Boom! --BDD (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy surgery and art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A rambling WP:OR connecting epilepsy surgery and art. There are lots of references, but none of them seem to discuss this concept in depth. The WP:SPA creator has declined to opportunity to rename the article after Eduardo Urbano Merino whose painting appears to be the focus of the article and who may be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi thank you for the possibility to include the article in Wikipedia. I would like to mention that I am not denying the possibility that the article can be renamed to Eduardo Urbano, although the new version is very focused to the art work. I am open to any comment and potential change. It is renamed, it is Ok with me Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftellez (talk • contribs) Moved from talk page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's a bit hard to follow on the article talk page, but the article creator has stated he has no objection whatsoever to a page move to Eduardo Urbano Merino, so let's please consider this case on that basis. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, there is what appears to be a published piece by the creator of this article here, accompanied by what appears to be independent WP:RS: a bylined Spanish-language news story. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and discussion about the article. The article that you are mentioning is a comprehensive review of 15 pieces of art from ancient times regarding epilepsy surgery and also a review of historical aspects of the topic. The article in Wikipedia does not review this material, obviously we can not copy an article (I can provide to Wikipedia de pdf of the article and you can read the review, is very large and comprehensive). There are other pieces of art that I mention in my review of Wikipedia and are not mentioned in the review from epilepsy and behavior). The article that I wrote is based in the remarkable fact that all the previous art works related with epilepsy surgery were bloody and painful for patients. For the first time Eduardo Urbano makes a friendly painting that can help patients to understand patients the process of healing after epilepsy surgery. The artist has a lot of achievements and I am happy to change the name of the article if the encyclopedia considers the option to put the title of the artist. I really want to spread the message of the painting from Eduardo Urbano to patients with epilepsy and people that can not afford to pay the 35 dollars to see the whole article about epilepsy surgery and art. I think the art for patients have to be universal and the copyrights of the painting belong to Eduardo Urbano and he kindly has shared the picture with me and other epilepsy institutions in Canada. I will continue adding material to the article to be better but I have heard from difrente people that the article gives a very positive message. Thanks and I hope that you can consider my thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.189.94.127 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC) The other option that I can modify is put the title as "Eduardo Urbano merino", then the sections could be "Contemporary art work in epilepsy", then "Information about Eduardo", then "Painting, Epilepsy, leaving behind the nightmare" and finally "Importance of the painting" Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftellez (talk • contribs) 21:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is renamed Eduardo Urbano Merino it will then be restructured to comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and in particular Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear either from the article or from my searches on the topic that Merino merits an article either. Moving and restructuring doesn't seem to be a solution in this case. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by virtue of WP:Blow it up and start over. There may be an article with this topic to be be had at Wikipedia, but this is not it. The lead paragraph discusses the concept of medical procedures in general as a subject for various pieces of art, but not epilepsy surgery in any example. The section on Merino discusses a single piece of art that he has created, but that piece depicts the ravages of arthritis, not epilepsy surgery. Finally, there is a section that describes one piece titled "Epilepsy, leaving the nightmare behind", with a detailed description of the painting, but neglecting to note who created the work. An online search finds that the painting was also created by Merino, an artist of no particular notability. The article itself points out that "Epilepsy surgery has been depicted in few artistic works", suggesting that this topic probably is not notable enough for an entire Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Part of the problem, I'd say, is that the article creator keeps reverting my efforts to wikify it. There really does seem to be lack of WP:COMPETENCE getting in the way of his well intentioned efforts to improve and retain the article. I have to admit, the whole thing is rather amusing to me since the artcreator appears to literally be a brain surgeon. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, the true is that there are only two contemporary works in epilepsy surgery, the one from Eduardo Urbano and the one from Juan Bravo. The previous available paintings are from the renaissance, so it is unique. In the background I just try to give an introduction to the reader about art and medicine, then some examples of art in epilepsy (there are some available, not many) and then going to the main topic that is epilepsy surgery. If you suggest me a sequence a can change the article, but goes with some background and then the description. I can do an effort to join the paragraphs to create a sequence Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftellez (talk • contribs) 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the comments in the discussion from the editors but I feel that the article has a sequence and it is well documented. Maybe if the title changes and it is called Eduardo Urbano Merino and his art vision in epilepsy or something like that can be more logical. I really respect the comments and I am just trying to improve the article to have a better reading going from something general to the specific point which is the painting, the perspective of the author and the potential benefit for patients. I add a sentence to linked the first paragraph with the rest of the article, specifying that the article is focused on the paintings by this artist. I am not a surgeon I am neurologist with special interest in epilepsy Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftellez (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm sorry, the article is a lost cause imo. We're a couple of reliable sources shy of a notable artist, by our standards here and what we have here are two WP:SPA and WP:COI editors (including User:Lady Ladino) who aren't sufficiently fluent in English to help matters any. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a topic. It is just a rehash of the article published on Epilepsy and Behavior by the main article editors, and as such it is basically WP:OR supported only by primary sources. Call me back when it becomes a topic in the academic literature. --cyclopia^speak! 20:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Saratoga Union School District. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Middle School (Saratoga, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be an average middle school, and I found no evidence it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/!vote - "The Redwood Marching Band and Color Guard was selected to represent the state of California in the 56th Presidential Inaugural Parade of President Barack Obama in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2009." This is probably this school's "claim to fame" - if there are enough sources out there, it could be a keep. I'm about to sleep now, but if someone could check it out. Otherwise, it's a typical WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES merge/redirect to Saratoga Union School District. Ansh666 06:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ansh666: I have added a source for this claim. ^King Jakob _C2 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really think that would count as a WP:RS. I was looking for press coverage or something, but not finding much. Ansh666 17:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added what is definitely a reliable source. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Saratoga Union School District per long-standing precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Saratoga Union School District but merge the Marching Band achievement to the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most extraordinary of elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lehman, Lee & Xu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Ok, it is a Law Firm, however the article fails to establish notability, the references fails WP:V, the article fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I only found trivial mentions and press releases. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lehman, Lee & Xu is notable as the 8th private Law Firm to be opened in the PRC. Also, the references are corrected and come from reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.7.60 (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only the 8th? Maybe 1st or 2nd, but being 8th does not confer notability. Non-notable only mentions in non RS or mentions in passing ie The firm is named as filing suit for someone. Caffeyw (talk) 10:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph, Days of Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this movie gained widespread distribution or won awards. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N, and certainly fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). Nothing at Google news archive or IMDB, for instance. The only ref in the article is the film's own website, which is a deadlink. The creator of the article has the same name as the film's writer/director/producer. The article has been tagged as "unreferenced" for 5 1/2 years. Edison (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources, heck, it doesn't even seem to have an IMDb page. The article gives the name of the director as Jim Conlon, and the guy who created the article went by the name of Jimconlon. Probably promotion. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete but perhaps redirect somewhere. While the film exists and Jim Conlon is a Missouri documentary filmmaker who does have just one IMDB credit acting in another St.Joseph area documentary film.[58], his educational documentary film[59] was aired on television, but it seems destined to be screened only libraries.[60] Coverage of this film seems more limited to it having inspired "local" reenactments.[61][62] Certainly there must be some other place within Wikipedia, perhaps in an article on that area's history, where this might be mentioned? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm the AFD nominator. It's not that I don't like the film. It seems to be a relatively low budget documentary, and in a clip of a train wreck on Youtube it shows as well as many historical reenactment films one might see on the History Channel. A nice effort, by a talented director, who knows how to do more with less, and a film which would be quite watchable, but we don't keep articles just because we like the subject. Edison (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I would not wish you or anyone presume that a "like" or "not like" had anything to do with my delete... And would wish only that my suggestion toward possible mention elsewhere of a verifiable history re-enactment film that lacks enough notability for a separate article is in consideration of serving the project and its readers... nothing else. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Military Law Literature in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just a bibliography of works on a topic without any context at all. Seems like a clear fail of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is relevant. This article is a bibliography of Indian military law. It is not a random list of random items. NOTDIRECTORY is a more likely candidate. The real question is whether publications on Indian military law satisfy WP:NOTESAL. Are they notable as a group? Are there, for example, professionally prepared bibliographies etc. covering that subject? I imagine that they are notable. Even if they are not, we do have a Bibliography of law, and this list could be merged into that or treated as a daughter article, provided sources can be found to justify the selection. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Two selective bibliographies on this subject (though they may be different editions of the same book):[63][64]. James500 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) There are also bibliographies on Indian law generally and international bibliographies which presumably cover India. It may be that these works are organised in a way that identifies works relating to the military law of that country. James500 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Also, this Wikipedia article professes to be "based chiefly on an article by Major General Nilendra Kumar, former Judge Advocate General, Indian Army". If that article could be identified it would presumably be a reliable source. James500 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC) As to him, see [65][66] James500 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 5 August 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete both articles--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Has not played at a fully professional level or internationally at senior level. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following similar article because of the same reasoning as above:

David Ilic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Neither has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning both fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - per nom, junior international football is insufficient for WP:NFOOTY and there is no indication of any significant achievements creating in depth coverage of the players to warrant GNG recognition. Fenix down (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A article could be written on the Durbin amendment; I'm not sure that it could be written on the case, which is only a case in a trial court, not an appeal court. But none of this justifiesan article on the organization. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. Easily a G11 autobiographical promotional article, no need to mention SOFTDELETE here. Secret ^account 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Needs third-party sources. Needs more notability. EuroCarGT 04:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable Internet personality —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 03:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable actress lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article references are not adequate to support article and consist of primary references and listing for the movie. reddogsix (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuro5hin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, long-term neglect and lack of interest. Trollaxor (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG with coverage in Wired and The Register cited as well as other less reputable sources, plus more Register[67], Geek.com (a Ziff Davis site)[68], PC Mag[69], Trust in E-services: Technologies, Practices and Challenges edited by Ronggong Song[70]. Neglect and lack of interest aren't grounds for deletion, so it's only whether it's notable that's in dispute. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexa confirms K5 is dying (keep per WP:NTEMP) —rybec 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep per WP:GNG.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77] The coverage is sufficient and indicates significance. Peter James (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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