Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 June	22 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd William Gameson III

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

Non-notable person. Cleric appointed in a church whose notability is in question (see WP:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem catholic), with only primary sources available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CLERGY and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES; this is clearly not an automatically notable clergyman. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He is non-notable and the church was deleted in AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not finding any coverage in reliable sources for this subject. Zero GNews archive and GBooks hits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Djiby Ba

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. One of the sources listed is an unreliable player profile, the other a routine transfer announcement of another player that mentions Mr. Ba only in passing, which does not amount to sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. In addition, he has only ever played in the non-fully-pro Slovak Second Division, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT. Ravenswing 06:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SIIMA Award for Best Debutant Producer

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

Non-notable award. No refs. PROD removed with a google url which returns four hits, none of which appear to mention this award. Other searching reveals a handful or forum posts and wiki entries. Nothing reliable and nothing in depth. Note that this appears to be part of a series of related articles which may have similar issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Stunning, how nominator could ignore 865,000 hits in google with hundreds of WP:RS sources: Click -> It doesn't make any sense to exclude particular Award categories. They are all part of the same Award show as clearly documented at www.siima.in and other sources. -- Dravidian Hero 10:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:GHITS for why that's not an appropaite answer at AfD. Note also that that search isn't for information about this topic, since the search string is "South Indian International Movie Awards"; Googling for "South Indian International Movie Awards Award for Best Debutant Producer" gives me zero hits and "SIIMA Award for Best Debutant Producer" appears to only give me this page republished by third parties. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dravidianhero above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, if the nominator feels that these are "non-notable award(s)" he should first nominate for deletion the main article South Indian International Movie Awards and not just one of its legitimate spinout articles. First the head, then the body. Cavarrone 06:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the reverse. South Indian International Movie Awards has references, which this doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you yourself consider South Indian International Movie Awards as notable, I don't see which is your point about this spinout article, except it is unsourced. Yes, it is an unsourced article about a notable award (same as, eg, BAFTA Award for Best Makeup and Hair), and this is not a reason to delete it. Cavarrone 08:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Hollywood

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

This stamp issue is not notable in itself. One of many similar special issues by the USPS. References merely confirm that the USPS puts famous people on stamps to raise money. No assertion of notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no coverage and not even a claim of notability. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Fialho

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

Non-notable model. Article has no references. Images uploaded by user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sharayu05, who claims Barbara as a client. That user has also only edited this article and another article on a model named Monica Hansen. This implies a conflict of interest. Barbara is definitely pretty, but not notable. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not think WP:COI would come into play as long as the article is written from WP:NPOV. Nominator makes a good point about being pretty, but unfortunately there is no notability guidelines for being pretty. I was hoping to find at least good WP:RS but all I found was images. As such, she simply falls short of WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - Appears to have news hits in a number of languages (translators needed!) - there are four American hits for someone else with the same name in the late 1970s, and it would appear not to be that unique a name as per Google Books so maybe not all the results are for her. The actual article is very poor, and WP:HOTTIE considerations aside, I think it probably best to delete and hopefully someone will properly recreate it in the future with better sourcing, if it exists. Mabalu (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kovonalov machine gun

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

DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh666 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I too have been unable to find any reliable sources that give in-depth coverage of the subject, therefore it fails WP:GNG. I would not object to this article being recreated in significant coverage in reliable source are published.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears this is based on a Russian patent (a WP:PRIMARY source), and there was perhaps one prototype. That's an educated guess because the other bunch of problematic articles are also based on patents only, but US ones. Fails WP:GNG. I should note that likely the same person has registered another account more recently and has created a bunch of other problematic articles in the same area. I have WP:PROD-ed some of those, but they have been mass-contested; see WT:MILHIST for a list. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've done as much looking as I can, and can't find mention of this, so deletion seems right under GNG; this may also rise to the level of hoax if other indicia are found. As a note, I'm the one who mass-contested the Prodding of these articles, merely because they should be handled in AfD (in my opinion) if it's based on lack of third-party sources alone. This gives an opportunity for other editors to at least attempt a rescue, if possible. Cdtew (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a hoax - there was a Soviet military designation for this weapon, but the article was deleted and someone moved some of the info here (I can't find it anymore, though). Also, just a note, this was a different batch but dePRODded for much the same reason. Ansh666 21:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The designer, А.И.Коновалов, appears very obscure; neither he nor his gun have page in the Russian Wikipedia. This appears to be the gun in question. The English Wikipedia article is basically a machine translation of that page, which is basically a patent summary (more like a very primitive version thereof, see ru:Авторское свидетельство). So the wiki article is WP:COPYVIO basically, beside being entirely a WP:PRIMARY source and rather uninformative. The full, two-page text of the Soviet inventor's certificate (patent) for this "gun" can be found here. And the full patent is really more about a design principle than some specific mechanism, which makes it doubtful the prototype was even operable. For example, the exact type of ammunition (7.62x39mm M43), or even its caliber in general are not found in the full version of the patent, but were somehow added to Wikipedia. (That's probably more "clever deductions" from the same troublesome WP:SPA gun factory editor(s), who have created a bunch of other problematic articles.) Anyway, I don't know why this would be more notable than any random patent from the perennial Socialist workers' contest... There is no evidence there was a "Soviet military designation" for this proposal/prototype. There isn't any evidence that it was even considered by the army in some role, or that it was part of some [con]test for a new service weapon. Googling around, there's nothing more that can be found besides some copies of those images (and of the short, blurb text) on some Russian gun forums, which is probably the route through which it ended up on Wikipedia. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon (French band)

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

Fails the general notability guideline. No reliable, independent, secondary sources. It also appears to fail the notability criteria for musicians. Nominated for WP:PROD but an editor reverted the edit without addressing the issue. Diva Knockouts 20:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources covering the band. Calidum Sistere 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SVS-137

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

DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh666 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although there are non-reliable sources which give significant coverage of the subject of this AfD I have not found any reliable sources that do the same. Therefore, although non-reliable sources can verify that the subject of this AfD exists, but lacking in-depth coverage from reliable sources the subject is not notable as defined by WP:GNG. I wouldn't be opposed to this article's recreation if in-depth coverage from reliable sources can be found.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything besides that gun forum, and that one is 404 too. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Wuzzy (song)

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

Although the rhyme that makes up the chorus is well-known among children (or at least was when I was a kid) there is no evidence that this song based on it was or is particularly notable. Almost the entire article is just the lyrics, (possibly constituting a copyright violation) and the only "reference" is just the sheet music for the song, so even if we wanted an article on the song this isn't it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article like this is clearly not notable. Koala15 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is little of substance here except for a possible copyright violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep/Rewrite. Here are some articles that mention the song:

Johnson, Kathy E.; Carolyn B. Mervis (1997). "First steps in the emergence of verbal humor: A case study". Infant Behavior and Development. 20 (2): 187–196. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(97)90021-7. ISSN 0163-6383.

Cole, Ronald A. (1980). "Segmenting speech into words". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 67 (4): 1323. doi:10.1121/1.384185. ISSN 0001-4966.

Mook, Maurice A. (1959). "Tongue Tanglers from Central Pennsylvania". The Journal of American Folklore. 72 (286). American Folklore Society: 291–296. JSTOR 538578.

Rose, Ralph L. "What's in a pronoun?" (PDF). Retrieved 21 June 2013.

Lederer, Richard (October 1981). "A Primer of Puns". The English Journal. 70 (6). National Council of Teachers of English: 32–36. JSTOR 817149.

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is where things unfortunately are not at all clear. The article is about the song released in 1944. The references seem to mostly deal with the children's rhyme that is used as the chorus of the song. The article, with only sheet music as a reference, is not clear on which came first. That is, is the song based on the rhyme or vice-versa? Is there perhaps an answer in any of those sources, if they draw that distinction at all or are even aware of the song? Until we manage to clarify that it's hard to say whether these sources are of use or not, and until we do that it is difficult to improve the article from its current sorry state. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across this GNews hit for the rhyme, dating from 1940, so it looks as if the rhyme probably came first. PWilkinson (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there has been no clarification as to whether the sources mentioned above pertain to the rhyme or the song. As they are mostly offline or behind paywalls I can't figure that one out for myself, my local library is fairly small and I am not inclined to spend my money to look at the others. So, unless someone is actually able to see those sources and determine which topic they concern we cannot consider them useful as references for this particular article. It may be entirely possible to construct an acceptable article on the rhyme, but it does not look to me like the song ever got much attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AG-021

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

DePRODded. Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:RS. Someone might need to check for Russian sources, but to me just seems like an experimental prototype that never went into production. Ansh666 23:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In production or not, what matters is having WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. This article falls well short. Not only are there no reliable sources that I could find, I had trouble finding any sources at all. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage in reliable source and there's none in the article. The picture is 404 for me. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Wikipedia itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flocations

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

Not a notable company. Fails WP:COMPANY just an advertising. Tyros1972 Talk 08:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources appear to be routine. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy and not notable per WP:CORP Sherwood10 (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto -- Y not? 16:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Zambrano

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

Not enough reliable sources and a few news articles listed is not RS. Tyros1972 Talk 06:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs plenty of work, but there's plenty there. Bondegezou (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the foundation is there but sources could stand cleaning (perhaps provide origibal Spanish text?). Eddie.willers (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, barely sourced and I don't really see that much notability--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahi school health programme

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

Article was already a "speedy delete" and deemed to be for promotion and advertizement. While I don't have anything personal against a non-profit org such as this, I am not sure if this is notable, so I opened an AfD. Tyros1972 Talk 06:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This doesn't read like an advertisement to me at all. It's a simple description of the organization's aims and activities that doesn't use any kind of promotional language or hype. In any case, that would be an issue for clean-up, not deletion. The only issue remaining is notability; I didn't find much in English but I'd expect there to be more coverage in Arabic than English. It's important to consider sources in other languages: imagine how much of Wikipedia's content on Europe and North America we'd delete if we only looked for sources in Arabic, for example (or Hindi or Mandarin). Dricherby (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I removed a very small amount of promotional language. Given that it covered multiple schools and involved notable people and organisations I considered that A7 did not apply either, and declined the speedy delete in order to keep it. I do not consider that the proposer actually has any valid reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:INeverCry per A7. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Injustice (band)

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

nonnotably fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are scant and unreliable. Curb Chain (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (band). No claims of significance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Faint. L Faraone 00:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vverevvolf Grehv

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO as sources which do exist are crowdfunding selfpublishing websites Curb Chain (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources found anywhere that support WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Faint. Lacks enough for a standalone article but the side project of a notable band should be mentioned. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the above Merge proposal by "Michig" so as to not lose any information about this side project. Guy1890 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amar (Lebanese Singer)

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. nn Taroaldo ✉ 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until references can be provided, whereupon this can be removed from archive.--Laun chba ller 21:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For many reasons, ranging from the BAND notability guideline to the fact that sentences like this are utterly unencyclopedic: "As usual, Mirna blows us away with her clever and unique story board ;)". Andrew³²⁷ 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fenno Heath

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

Musician lacking notability. Just part of a few undergraduate groups. Heath lacks coverage in independent reliable souces. (note the NYTimes link is for a paid obit). Nothing satisfying WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Prod restored without improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage is insufficient. Calidum Sistere 22:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the guidelines.--Iniciativass (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hodgy Beats. L Faraone 01:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2 EP

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

Mixtapes generally fail WP:NALBUMS and this is no special exclusion to that rule. A random mixtape that received little to no promotion prior to dropping, and has not been covered widely in reliable sources outside of the brief mention of its release. STATic message me! 00:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC; insufficient coverage to clear GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hodgy Beats. A couple of sentences there mentioning his forays into hardcore/nu-metal and the contributions of Lee Spielman, Flying Lotus, The Alchemist and Thelonious Martin there would be appropriate. This was quite widely covered, albeit generally briefly, e.g. SPIN, Exclaim!, FACT in addition to the sources in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Hodgy Beats per Michig. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Koala15 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources just cover the release of it, and say basically the same thing. There is not enough information on the mixtape to have its own stand alone article. Definitely worth a merge but should not have its own article. STATic message me! 19:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines–Ukraine relations

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

fails WP:GNG. this article hinges on 2 primary sources. One of them merely compares there is no resident ambassador. The other is a copy about trade. The relations need third party sources. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do realize that this article has not established notability. There are aren't any other sources that I can find.--Zuanzuanfuwa (talk) 06:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added quite a few sources. Most are small, but a few were in depth. This is over the line. --99of9 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N, per sources now within the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 990f9 did a good job of updating the information and bringing the article to an acceptable level. Calidum Sistere 22:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 99of9 did a good job finding reliable sources; as there appears to be sufficient reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject of the article, the subject appears to meet WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cable Jones

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

He spent one year as develoment wrestler and 10 as independent wrestler in minor indy promotions. I think that he isn't notable. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Non-notable individual. — Richard BB 12:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. L Faraone 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamel Holley

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

Non-notable politician. Mayor of a relatively small borough in New Jersey (population ~21,000), with no indications of anything but the local coverage that might be expected of any local mayor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is only local insignificant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carr Collins, Jr.

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

Article fails WP:GNG. I cannot find anything to show that this individual is notable and the article fails to prove notability. User226 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is primarily an attempt at notability by association. A possible criterion might be WP:AUTHOR, but no evidence of notability there. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain but I have recently expanded the article, and it is no longer BLP. Added his obituary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Messoudi

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has yet to appear for Impact's first team and internationally, has only ever played at the youth level, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Of two sources listed one is a player profile, the other does not mention him, so this does not amount to significant coverage and the article fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and has not played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFOOTY. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch Marketing

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

Apparently non-notable company. Proposed deletion was declined by C Inglish (talk · contribs) without comment. Article creator's username (Murdoch M (talk · contribs) indicates conflict of interest. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company appears non-notable. Article is kinda spammy too for good measure. Calidum Sistere 22:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company is not notable per WP:CORP Sherwood10 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Garcia

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

Non-notable TV producer/fashion consultant. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not info reliable coverage of this person. Calidum Sistere 22:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two references are the very unreliable IMDb; another just barely mentions her and the fourth does not mention her at all. — Wylie pedia 10:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 00:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wake of Poseidon (song)

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

Song on a notable album, but never released as a single, so has no independent notability: fails WP:NSONG. Been tagged as unreferenced and of questionable notability since Dec 2012. PROD contested without explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace (King Crimson song) for a related AfD. Bondegezou (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Showing my age here: a piece from the second LP I ever bought. But it isn't individually notable: fails WP:NSONG. AllyD (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easily verifiable, just hasn't been got around to yet. Ohwrotcod (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments on Peace, which read, Unreferenced with no assertion of importance, fails WP:NSONGS. As a further comment to Ohwrotcod, find the notability and references I am happy to change my mind in this matter. Also, merging the information into the album makes sense, especially as KC are known as album/concept band rather than a purveyor of "songs" --Richhoncho (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of why this song is notable enough. Pertinent information can be merged into the album's article. Calidum Sistere 22:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Moulton

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

Only a few scant references in reliable sources. Article is most likely an attempt to legitimize a political candidate, created by an SPA. Calidum Sistere 14:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indication of importance. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per above. No indication of importance. EricSerge (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cianciulli

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

I discovered this page after finding and deleting the affiliated page for the company he created, Wish Group, so full disclosure there. I've also blocked the editor for having the same name as a marketing company that specializes in web content, so full disclosure here as well. (I left the option open for him if he expresses an interest in creating non-promotional sounding articles and changing his username.) That said, the problem here is that although this article makes some assertion to notability, there is pretty much nothing out there on the internet about him. There are various press releases, but not really anything that would show that he really is all that notable enough to merit his own article. I found an article by the Globe and Mail that lists him as a "person to watch" but not really anything else. Not enough to merit an article, anyway. The article is vaguely promotional sounding, but not so much so that I'd feel completely comfortable nominating for a speedy as a promotional article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spammy and lacking in reliable sources. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per RHaworth. Can't find secondary RS for this individual. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly promotional and not enough independent sources The Banner talk 21:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actual sources found, and this guy's main claim to fame seems to be collecting acrylic desk ornaments. Grayfell (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI biography created by User:Mikeagency (now blocked); the article says the subject has a firm called "The Mike Agency". Subject has various school-specific and local emerging awards but these do not look strong enough to demonstrate achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, A7. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria in Radoslav's Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2013

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

I accidently put this through for creation, but on reading it it seems seriously confused. It looks pretty legit, but whats going on? Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The contest is not notable, and is in no way connected to the Junior Eurovision Song Contest whatsoever. From what I gather after researching on the internet, it is a contest organised by a fan via Youtube only. So I think the article fails WP:GNG. Wesley ☮ Mouse 20:58, 20 June 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 June 21. Snotbot t • c » 05:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Axe Music

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

Lack of coverage in reliable sources indicates it appears to fail WP:ORG Taroaldo ✉ 05:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Aggarwal

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

Despite the amazingly promotional tone of the biography, there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability attached. Taroaldo ✉ 05:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references relate to the firm not the subject, who gets passing mention/quotation in some of them. No evidence of the subject having individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with AllyD here. There already is an article Koenig Solutions for the IT training institute. I do not see that the owner Rohit Aggarwal is inherently notable. (Note also --- The sole contribution of the user is to create Koenig Solutions and Rohit Aggarwal. The same references are quoted in both and a promotional tone is used.) Thanks, Anand ^{(talk page)} 12:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deaden (1991 band)

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

nonnotable artist fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No sources could be found to prove otherwise. Curb Chain (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication or evidence of notability. CD/tape sales figures are unimpressive. PK T(alk) 13:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable band. They only played in clubs, there is no coverage, and their sales figures are not that good. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - when bands have only played in clubs, they are not notable. No coverage, poor sales figures per SL93. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Princes (band)

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

Adding the related articles:

the references cited has no or very few information about the band Uncletomwood (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence about this one, only because I don't know how to evaluate the Estonian sources, and Google translate is stubbornly refusing to translate entire web pages at the moment. (Anyone else having this problem?) From what I can tell, the band has only release six singles so far; not even a debut album yet. They've gotten some local airplay, and some forum comments and blogosphere notice, but no indications of anything more yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should add that the article was created by a member of the band, so the self-promotional aspect can't be ignored. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC: non-notable band, hasn't even released an album yet, apparently unsigned. Also appears to be self-promotion/SPAM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all per WP:SNOW Mandsford 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula One season

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

Irrelevant page that is way too far into the future. They also do not display enough new information, which is the only reason why a new season page would be made. Examples are new teams, rule changes, etc. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all too far ahead, and they all display no new information.

RomeEonBmbo (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. Compare solid delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Formula One season. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The content of each article is "The 20__ Formula One season will be the ___th FIA Formula One season." (2014 is the 65th, 2015 the 66th, etc. I'm not sure why these articles were considered necessary, but no point in keeping all these for the next 4 to 10 years. Mandsford 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Four years is too far ahead. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no contents, no references, nothing worth salvaging. Unexpandable stubs set too far in the future for contents to be anything other than WP:Speculation. Also consider 2013 Formula One season deleted six times now. Speedy criteria A1 and A3 could both apply. --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, pointless placeholders with little information not already in the title of the entries. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy if possible Delete Why do people keep putting this sort of thing up? When info that's verifiable is available is quite soon enough. OK, there is a remote possibility that some nut will record an album called '2019 Formula One season' and hijack the title. I'd prefer the odds on winning the lottery.... Peridon (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, is it snowing already? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - User:Falcadore brings up good point that 2013 Formula One season has been deleted six times now. ∙:∙:.:pepper :.:∙:∙ 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hansell Arauz

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Mr. Arauz has only ever played in the Costa Rican Primera Division, which is not confirmed as fully professional, as stated in the PROD rationale, which means that the article fails WP:NSPORT. Regarding general notability, the first source is a routine transfer announcement, the rest are dead links, which does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. PROD was contested without a reason being provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shown to meet WP:GNG below. Giant Snowman 10:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article can pass the GNG with a little work. This listing from just one online newspaper shows that he is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (the 24/01/13 and 20/05/13 articles are significant for sure). If you check other online newspapers like La Nacion, I'm sure there is more significant coverage. Let's not delete this article simply because nobody has added these sources yet. Jogurney (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Jogurney. As someone who was included in a Copa America squad he should receive significant coverage. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maro Perak

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage. In fact, it doesn't look like he even has any fights for a second tier MMA organization. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Beating notable fighters isn't enough to qualify as notable. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One clove garlic

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

Contested prod. Article that rests on a single reference. Nothing about this topic on GBooks. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with solo garlic, which is the same topic, and is covered in the Food Encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Famous (film)

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

After a year there don't seem to be any updates on this planned indie film in reliable sources despite the various stars who were apparently going to be involved, though there is no mention of them being involved anymore at IMDB. Official page is down as well so it could be in development hell. Seems claim to notability only ever hinged on a handful of reports about the intended cast. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Since we do have some sourcability about casting and pre-production and it having begun filming last summer, I might have suggested a merge and redirect to its director... but as David Foote does not have an article, and as this thing is not expected for release until next year, this article is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one thing that is doubtless preventing this discussion from prospering is that the article's Afd template has a red link to this discussion; there's something wrong. Can someone fix it so the link here is a proper blue link that works? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should show up as blue now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thanks, Tokyogirl79. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This just doesn't pass WP:NFF. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy it, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insignificant coverage and no more updates about the film's status. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three-date rule

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

Fails WP:NOT. Almost unreferenced (and impossible to reference) OR magnet. The single citation doesn't really relate to the subject, and in fact serves to disprove the central thesis of the article. Initiating this article is the only mainspace edit from the creator. Horologium (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. More on the concept (the third date as the key litmus test for a new relationship) appears in GBooks and GNews searches for "third date" (see links added above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dating. The concept is discussed there, and actually is one of the main points of that article. So far sources have not been provided to show that it's a "rule." Borock (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Dating per Borock. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Dating where it is discussed in the U.S. and Canada section, which also solves its ethnocentric issue. --Lockley (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Survey trivia about an unencyclopedic concept, written as though it is a real thing. Non-notable neologism, at best, pure bunk at worst... Urban Dictionary is thattaway ------> Carrite (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline via significant coverage in multitudinous books, which discuss it and affirm or deny it, but still give it the coverage needed to justify an article: [6]: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Countless more books look promising, but only offer snippets. Google news archive has additional sources with significant coverage: [15], [16]. This is clearly not a neologism, but a well known concept. Edison (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , notable per sources found by Edison. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the sources found, it can be referenced in many other sources in popular culture. For example, it was an ongoing trope in The Big Bang Theory. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because a phrase is used repeatedly does not make it an encyclopedic concept. This isn't. It's a folksy little in-joke in the dating world. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mostly per Edison. Although it's not the strongest case for notability since there's no single source with extreme depth on the subject, the number of sources and the depth given does suggest notability for the subject. Additional reliable sources would always help, but those multiple references do appear to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 04:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dating. Notability is one thing, and there's likely enough to warrant a mention, but is there due weight to warrant an article? At this point, I would disagree. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. being a shit article isn't a reason for deletion if it can be saved Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Veley

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

WP:ONEEVENT. Doesn't seem to have much notability aside of his record. Needs additional citations for verification. Was deleted back in 2005, but recreated. Probably should be SALTed this time. p b p 21:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This man is a prominent member of a community of dedicated travelers. Reasonably noteworthy.Vincent (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent/Vfp15 was the article's creator

Have you any evidence that there are enough reliable sources for him to pass WP:GNG, or that he has any significance beyond his been-to-a-lot-of-places record (WP:ONEEVENT) p b p 16:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the sole nomination criterion being ONEEVENT, I advocate Keep. There are numerous sources that satisfy the GNG [17]. From nothing more than clicking the "news" button listed on this AfD, I see articles in the New York Times, Forbes, the Toronto Star and the Telegraph -- all of them major news sources, all of them discussing the subject in significant detail. This provokes serious doubt that the nom bothered with even the most cursory of searches for sources, as WP:BEFORE enjoins one to do before filing an AfD. That being said, ONEEVENT pretty much means "one event," and the fellow's notability doesn't stem from a single incident; it's from what he's done over the course of many years. You could, with as much accuracy and as much fidelity to the guideline, claim that a professional hockey player of long standing has no notability beyond sports. Ravenswing 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch it, bud. BEFORE isn't, and never will, be mandatory. It is not the AfD nominator's job to fix underreferenced BLPs p b p 15:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Err ... rather uncivil there, for someone with so many civility/diplomatic-based barnstars prominently displayed on your talk page? In any event, WP:BEFORE's language is studded with phrases such as "The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search ... Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform," "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD," "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page," "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination," and so on. No, boasting that you don't bother with WP:BEFORE isn't grounds for a speedy close of an AfD, but longstanding consensus holds that it's expected of nominators. Ravenswing 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's knock this urban myth that WP:BEFORE is not required on the head. Deletion policy says that the relevant reasons for deletion are "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and "articles whose subjects [my emphasis] fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)", not "articles which don't currently contain reliable sources to verify them" and "articles whose current content fails to demonstrate that they to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". This is policy, and so it is required for deletion nominators to address those points. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and purge related content from Travelers' Century Club. None of the content appears to be genuinely independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Toronto Star, Forbes Magazine, New York Times and the Daily Telegraph aren't independent? Ravenswing 02:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only ref in the article is an interview-based one with no evidence of independent research; thus not independent. The claims of articles above are WP:GHITS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err ... you're badly misconstruing WP:IRS. The definition of an "independent" source is whether it's independent of the subject, not based on your private opinion on whether the writer did his homework or not. As far as your curious invocation of WP:GHITS, what is that supposed to mean? Are you stating that the Toronto Star, New York Times, Forbes and Daily Telegraph pieces don't exist? There's no need for you to take my word for it -- look at the links yourself. If what you mean by it is that you don't feel you should have to look at any of the evidence before registering your opinion ... well, that's a common enough syndrome at AfD to be unremarkable. Ravenswing 06:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on above identified sources. Basically a lack of WP:BEFORE, as the same nominator admitted. Cavarrone 06:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a proper article is written. This article is shit. But there are plenty of sources to justify notability, such as those mentioned above and Ken Jennings' book Maphead. The thing is, this is a crappy article about a BLP, and it should be deleted unless editors are willing to maintain it properly. If it keeps coming back to AFD, that's a sign that editors are not willing to maintain it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ciesnolevicz

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

Subject is an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA because of only 2 top tier fights and who fails to meet WP:GNG because all coverage is routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

André Gusmão

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

MMA fighter with only 2 top tier fights (both losses) so he fails WP:NMMA and he also lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG (only has routine sports coverage). Jakejr (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 00:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Non Notable fighter. Finnegas (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails both GNG and NMMA criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seishinkan Iaido

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

Unsourced article about a martial art which, according to the article, has 6 schools worldwide, but dates back 470 years (according to the organization's website [18]). Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's be clear - this is a small group which practices a style (Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū) which has a very long and notable history. That of course does not mean this particular study group is. Notability is not inherited.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a commonly enough practiced martial art to pass WP:MANOTE. Luchuslu (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Musō Jikiden Eishin-ryū as a modern school.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's simply not practiced enough, taught enough, or covered enough to be notable. A mention, or even a merge, to its parent are is also an option though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It lacks sources and any claims to notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mirko Salvi

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He is yet to make his debut for Basel or the Swiss national team at the senior level, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT. Of the sources listed, two are statistical database entries which WP:NSPORT defines as trivial, one is a match report, one is a routine transfer announcement, and the other three don't mention him at all. All this does not amount to significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL due to the lack of any appearances in either FPL or international matches, and fails WP:GNG due to only receiving trivial and/or routine coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Windows Server 2012. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC) I have been asked to expand on my close. The consensus is that CRYSTAL applies. The keep side failed to substantiate sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article but the argument that this will be undoubtedly be notable has real merit. This dichotomy is reflected in the merge votes that recognise that there will be an article here in due cource. The common practise in these cases is to merge back into the main article and spin out the article again when there is sufficient reliable sources to create a substantial article. On this basis the merge votes appear to offer the best outcome between PRESERVE and CRYSTAL and also fit wider project consensus. I also have much less weight to keep votes that do not cite policy. So we don't ignore N based on a single primary source, as both N/GNG require multiple reliable sources to merit a standalone article. We also don't create article on the basis that other products have articles and we also accept that multiple reliable sources can be based on a single press release, which is why we are cautious about this kind of thing. ChrisGuiltari had the best keep argument but the points he made gained little traction from subsequent reviewers so I am, to a degree bound by the policy based votes that follow on. Hope this helps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2012 R2

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

Contains no verifiable information, and virtually no valid information whatsoever. The infobox is entirely pure conjecture. (Please note that "conjecture" is not even original research

Most of the information is now verifiable and more will be formally verified soon. Please don't go all hair trigger - this release IS coming and the features mentioned DO exist. Full discaosure will not be available till end June 2013.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please refer to the website on Windows Server 2012 R2 infobox: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/windows-server/windows-server-2012-r2.aspx

The original source of new version unveiling was an email that we received as Gold Partner of Microsoft. IMHO there should be information on Wikipedia, that there will be a new version of Windows Server called 2012 R2 (not 2013/2014 or whatsoever). Infobox contains information valid ATM and could be precised after RTM is here.

Jvilimek (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The website does not confirm any of the infobox contents: It mentions neither x64 nor IA-64, nothing about licensing scheme, cost, update mechanism and most importantly kernel type, which might change. Even if it had, WP:CRYSTAL issue remains. By the way, it'd be great if you stick to AfD formatting here. Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa. OK, I get your message. Would it be fine, if I/we remove above mentioned lines (architecture, licensing scheme, cost, kernel type...)? I agree, that IA-64 architecture could not be confirmed. However IMHO this article should be created, because in the near future it will be created anyway;) If the product announced would be let say MyGreatApplication 6.8 by some unknown company, this would be different. But its an OS used on 1/3 of all servers for God's sake ;) But whatever, I just tried to be helpful... Jvilimek (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jvilimek. I understand your feeling and I respect your opinion. Let's see what the rest of community thinks. But please allow me to give you a piece of advice: Writing an encyclopedia needs patience. Wait for the facts to surface, then wait until secondary sources comment on them; only then proceed to write an article about them. IMHO, we will eventually have a Windows Server 2012 R2 article but you acted to soon to start it. E.g. we don't know yet if the rumors are true and it is going to have cloud kernel or it will just update the venerable hybrid kernel. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "facts" have already "surface[d]" - did you read the references I added? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I also said "...then wait unit secondary sources comment on them", then again I added an example of what we still don't know. I also said "you acted to soon to start it". Finally, you seem to have completely disregarded Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. (See Wikipedia: ANTECEDENT.) Frankly, my friend, pulling a sentence out of its context and commenting on it is purely a waste of efforts on your part. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is not relevant here at all as it is automatically satisfied as implied above. WP:CRYSTAL is satisfied by the references in question. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Did I read that right? You just said notability is satisfied by one single primary source! Wow! I am going to assume you were trying to cheer us up by cracking a joke. But in case you meant it literally, I am afraid you should seriously consider being much more careful about the accuracy of what you write. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not read that right. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: an official source exists, and with a significant amount of information at that. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong bullshit! Do us all a favor and actually click on the link before barging in here. And by the way, when did Wikipedia became Microsoft's announcement machine? The article is basically a one line announcement: "It was unveiled on 06/04/2013. The release date is currently unknown." which is untrue because the source says "get notified when it is unveiled." WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N and WP:V are all forgotten here. Fleet Command (talk) 02:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you only looked at the single page - and not even the entirety of that - instead of looking at the entire website. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong language: Hello guys. I am sure the same message can be communicated with a more appropriate choice of language register. It is easy: Dogmaticeclectic says there is a source and FleetCommand says no only that source does not verify the contents of the article but the article also does not comply with WP:NOTADVERT, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Notability issue can be fixed over time, but only if the article passes "crystal ball" threshold. Not every verifiable or notable thing merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Microsoft has a good track record for this, and while it is pushing the TOOSOON limits the page creation is all but ensured. It has already seen coverage in a host of websites like PCWORLD[19] and The Register[20]. Russia's CyberSecurity has some additional points.[21] In Japan as well.[22] It already seems to meet GNG, its just a bit early. I see no real reason to wipe it out less than a week after its announcement which garnered international coverage. We will just be recreating it in another week or two. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ï¿½ (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you and anyone else stating this elaborate as to why you think WP:CRYSTAL applies here given the preceding discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Windows Server 2012, because this is a pretty minor update - it's much more like Windows Server 2003 R2 than Windows Server 2008 R2 in this sense. The client version, 8.1, is also a minor update.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound hypocritical, but this is definitely an action that I think would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. The information is not speculative, as there is now an official source, as you said. There are also multiple 3rd-party independent reliable sources for most of the information in the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you are attempting to determine the importance of the update before it has even been finalized - not to mention released. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The new feature lists I've been seeing justify it. We can always split it back out later if we find it to be like Windows Server 2008 R2 rather than Windows Server 2003 R2.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could also do something easier: simply keep it as is until the update is at least finalized to be able to make a more informed decision on this issue. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also know Microsoft doesn't make major changes to the features list once it's reached this stage, so it's not that likely that my conclusion will change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This diff is very concerning. It shows how speculative some of the contents in the article is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current information in the infobox is simply taken from the Windows Server 2012 one for the most part. While I agree that the information should be sourced here too, I disagree with simply removing it right now. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Winserver 2008 has a seperate page for its R2, and this was a very well publicized announcement, which many businesses will be using when it comes out. I'd say that deleting it would be absolutely pointless, as it will get an article when it comes out, and I'll put money on that. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But Windows Server 2003 R2 does not, and it was used almost equally widely. See my comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello. I agree with Jasper. other stuff exists is not a good reason in deletion discussions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: There are a number of reliable references already available, detailing a laundry list of features. There will surely be a huge number more in about ten days, when Microsoft releases more information at the Build conference (the article's current references state that this will be the case; so it is not conjecture). As the article stands now, it is not very speculative and is far shorter than it could be given the references I've added. In any case, it seems somewhat pointless to delete the article now when it's extremely likely that it will just be recreated in a week; it's better to spend the intervening time cleaning up the article so that it is of higher quality and easier to edit once more information is available. -- Lewellyn ^talk 05:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. These websites are not "secondary sources independent of the subject" (see WP:GNG) because they simply repeat Microsoft. So, no, that does not establish notability. And [23] and [24] both show that a large part of the article is indeed speculative because there are not enough sources to support either of the diffs. Dogmaticeclectic has so far vehemently denied this but again he has not provided sources to prove otherwise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Windows Server 2012. Let's analyse this for a second. Claiming that this will definitely be notable now is a violation of CRYSTAL. Stating that it will definitely be significantly independent of the original version is a violation of CRYSTAL. Stating that it should be kept in a standalone article because of Windows Server 2008 R2 is a violation of WP:OSE. However, it is confirmed, so, at least for now, it should have a place in the main WS2012 article. This will negate any need for original research or speculative content (note: I'm not saying those should be happening) whilst still being encyclopedic. If it turns out that 2012 R2 is significantly independent, then we can always split it out later. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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