Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 27

< Knowledge:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 29 (Sun) September 28 (Sat) September 27 (Fri) More...

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

< 26 June	28 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sego (diet drink)

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

unremarkable product, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Sources provided are primary soureces, advertisements created by the manufacturer itself. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep I am the one who contested the prod, but have no connection with the article apart from a spelling fix last month. The nominator is a self-confessed exclusionist who responded to my objection by quoting an irrelevant WikiPolicy. Anyway, it is a product that has a place in history of dieting, hence its mention in a book on the subject. You can buy memorabilia , people are asking questions about the product , local historians write articles about the factory My final argument is that there is life before the Internet. Remember that this is a product from the sixties, it is highly likely that there is coverage in contemporary newspapers and magazines. Having said that, I have found many independent sources doing my few minutes research for this statement, which I shall note on the articles talk page for future reference. Periglio (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep I might have a little bias here, because I created and expanded the article fairly significantly. I did so using Notable Sources. I'd suggest that products like Sego track a fairly important trend in meal replacement -- not to mention its place in the history of a notable U.S. dairy products company and its role in the discovery of a notable film actress. Only two of the seven sources in the article are advertisements, and in this case they are both used to credibly elucidate the product range; there's little reason to think LIFE Magazine was publishing fraudulent advertising. That the product is fleshed out in the Harvard University, Baker Library, Lehman Brothers Collection report goes a long way to suggest the product is notable.842U (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment availability of merchandise, blogs discussions and ads for the product are not sufficient evidence of notability. The Lehman Brothers Collection article demonstrates the notability of the parent company but not this product. Perhaps a merge there is the appropriate thing to do here.
- Comment availability of merchandise and blogs discussions about the product is sufficient evidence of notability. It demonstrates that the product was known well enough, i.e. notable, in its era to live on in peoples memory. Periglio (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  - Comment These self-published sources do not meet wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. "well known" is subjective and doesn't have as much to do with notability, at least for Knowledge, as you might think. It seems paradoxical but a subject that is hardly known at all can and has often met Knowledge notability guidelines more easily than something that is widely known. It all comes down to if/how it is being covered in reliable sources. You are going to have to come up with something more persuasive that "I like it and other people do too".--RadioFan (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
    - Comment I have demonstrated that the product was notable by showing how it lives on after its actual demise. Articles for sale on Amazon and Ebay are not self-published sources nor are they subjective. No one has said that the links were a reliable source, I merely introduced the links to emphasise that it is a still recognised product and is worthy of an article. I have never made the argument "I like it and other people do too" and I do not have to come up with anything more persuasive - This is a forum where users have their say and an Administrator decides on the strength of argument. So kindly desist in trying to negate peoples opinion by quoting irrelevant WP:ATA policy. Please move on and let this Afd run its course. Periglio (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong delete I'm sorry, but a majority of the "references" are advertisements. They, in themselves, aren't actual sources or references. Dusti 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep We can see a snippet view from a 1979 book called Advertising and the practice of marketing that says "The Pet Milk Company had made a decision to enter the liquid diet food market, recently popularized by Metrecal, despite the fact that the trade press estimated that over two hundred brands of liquid diet food were being ..." A trade publication called Food Business wrote in 1963, in this snippet: "Experiments to incorporate these qualities into a diet food resulted in Sego. (The Sego name was a re-application of a Pet brand of evaporated milk marketed in Utah, and derived originally from the state flower of Utah — the sego.)" A 2010 book called The Hundred Year Diet: America's Voracious Appetite for Losing Weight described the market battle between Metrecal and Sego. This same market battle was discussed decades earlier in Cases in consumer behavior in 1969. These online sources from an era when many reliable sources aren't available online, show notability, Though long off the market, the product was (and therefore still is) notable. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Trade publications dont always make great sources. They are often little more than rewording of press releases. The mentions you list above dont sound like the kind of "significant" coverage called for by notability guidelines. I'm sure everyone participating in this discussion has done the Google book search as well and didn't come up with anything stronger either. Mention of the subject in a published book just isn't enough to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Again you ignore the point that the product predates Google. The fact that Google reveals 3rd party references and the products use as an iconic image demonstrates its notability. The product no longer exists but is still talked about. Also, the mentioned books are not trade publications? Finally, you somehow conclude everyone does a google search and not find anything? How do you reach this conclusion when you are the only one arguing? Periglio (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Sources other than those found via Google are very welcome in this or any other deletion discussion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Cullen - to me, those Google Books snippets are indeed significant coverage. Also, if there is that much information on google books, there is probably a lot more in print sources which aren't available online. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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 result was merge to List of Ambassadors of Mongolia to Russia. L Faraone 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Luvsandandar Khangai

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not result in automatic notability. nothing in gnews in English. and a few mentions in Russian but nothing significiant. . LibStar (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Could be prod'd as a BLPPRD - no references or sources to indicate notability Dusti 00:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's ineligible for WP:BLPPROD for two reason: it was created before 2010, and it has references. Pburka (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge to List of Ambassadors of Mongolia to Russia. Pburka (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge to List of Ambassadors of Mongolia to Russia. Northamerica1000 04:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Singapore Accountancy Commission

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. nothing in gnews, and 1 hit in Singapore's top newspaper . being a Government body doesn't mean automatic notability, it seems to only be of importance for accountants working in Singapore. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Knowledge administrator, seven secondary sources from good print and web media sources have been added to the article. Six of these weren't previously available as they were only published following the launch of the SAC on 1 April 2013. Secondary sources will continue to be added as they become available. Ilovebeans2013 (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC) — Ilovebeans2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep 27 sources and references within the article. Granted, I didn't go through all of them, but at least some assertion of notability lies within the article. That, combined with it being a gov. body generates enough motivation to say keep Dusti 00:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

SimuRide

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

Non-notable software. Very little coverage from third-party sources with minimal depth of coverage. Mostly an advertisement for the software. Contested proposed deletion from many years ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete The fact that there isn't even really an article listed as a source for the release of the software concerns me. Dusti 00:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: None of the "third party sources" are strong enough to prove notability. The two decent looking sources are little more than advertising. The University news article is heavy on promotion and light on facts. The "academic paper" source is clearly a research proposal, with a single reference of its own. I'm certainly not convinced of the reliability of any of the given sources. External sources, not included in the article, don't contain enough depth - just brief mentions - to provide any further support to the claim of notability. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yogiraj maharaj paithankar

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

Fails WP:NOTE. No citations and a search fails to indicate any likely reliable sources. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Strong delete I can't quite understand the article, but it looks like it's about a God? No citations and no notability as far as I can tell through trying to read the article Dusti 00:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Whoever wrote this article clearly doesn't speak English as a first language, but more important, a Gsearch only resulted in Knowledge and mirrors. Erpert 08:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. soft delete = prod Spartaz 17:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sehrawat

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

Although there are references to people bearing the various spellings of this gotra as part of their name, there seems to be no real information out there in reliable sources that discusses the clan as an entity. As such, it fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

AO-65 assault rifle

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Knowledge itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2B-A-40

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Knowledge itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Of the dozen or so article on obscure Soviet stuff recently nominated, this the only one that actually has some sources backing it up. There are some pictures of the gun here (you need scroll down, actual pictures are and ). I haven't read through all that page to see if it was just a prototype or what, but I suspect so given that serial numbers 1 and 2 are shown in the first pic. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, perhaps redirect later. Ok, I've looked through a printed biography of Kalashnikov (in Russian). It turns out this 2B-A-40 was a competing design made by A. S. Konstantinov in 1956; it entered trials in 1957, together with a bunch of others as a possible replacement/improvement of the AK-47. 2B-A-40 was probably not selected for any service, for it was rejected in that trial; none of the competitors were a significant improvement on Kalashnikov's gun that was already in service. It could be mentioned together with the rest in the history section of AK-47, if it even had a paragraph on the 1957 trials, but there currently isn't one. If we had a biography of Александр Семенович Константинов (but he doesn't even have one in the Russian wiki), this gun should also be mentioned there. There isn't really any useful content in this stub. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Note. Someone might want to look at Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Uayoa; there are a lot of articles in need of attention, all created by a group of accounts sharing similar characteristics. Not all of their creations are bad, but enough are misleading/uninformative, like this one was. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment to Someone: I'm not sure, but I don't think links to external images count as sources (correct me if I'm wrong). Anyways, I don't doubt that these weapons I've AfD'd existed, but they simply aren't notable enough, even to the Russians. I think the editor is trying to be useful, but doesn't have the concept of notability in mind. Ansh666 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

2B-P-25

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

Fails WP:GNG - could not find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Someone might need to check for reliable Russian sources. Ansh666 18:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet Wiki notability requirements. The main source of information on the internet for this firearm seems to be Knowledge itself or a Wiki mirror.--RAF910 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The Russian table cited for reference does not even mention this gun. Only 2Б-А-40 is in that table. Article fails WP:V. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fanwank made me smile Spartaz 17:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Fanwank

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable neologism/dicdef Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. It appears that this article has been merged, split, deleted, and undeleted in the past. If it is deleted, a soft redirect to wikt:fanwank seems to be in order. Cnilep (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Reply throughout this activities the article was utterly unreferenced, i.e., itself was an example of fanwanking in times when wikipedia was rather lax about its content. Therefore any merges/splits (if any) were in fact propagation of the violation of wikipedia's the most basic rule WP:NOR. Moreover, it was tagged to be merged in "fanon" however this tag was removed as no consensus, and I saw no tracing of merging. I see no signs of splitting. It was restored on the basis or copyright preservation of the possibly re-used content. I don't think we must protect copyright of stuff added against basic wikipedia rules. Let them sue, and I am sure an admin will gladly restore the content into their user page. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Nonnotable neologism. Edison (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep It seems to me this is an important concept that warrants an article. A quick Google search demonstrates the term is being used widely. I've added a good academic journal citation to back the main definition. However, WP:NEO requires not just usage of the term but WP:RS articles about the term and I've done less well so far on those. A wiktionary re-direct, as per Cnilep, would be my second choice. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Fandom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Incoherent vulgarity. Warden (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete I am with Warden on this one. This is not an encyclopedia article. -- Y not? 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Anil Kumar Pandey

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also note that WP:Notability is not inherited. Ansh666 21:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Gauri Shankar Pandey. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mit Peck

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

This article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NALBUMS. I cannot find information to prove that this album is notable on its own. User226 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Vulfpeck. I'm not convinced the band is notable either, but the article exists and isn't under AFD at the moment.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Y not? 20:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Something Strong

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

This article does not appear to meet notability per WP:NALBUMS. I cannot find information to prove that this album is notable on its own. User226 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 23:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Mervyn Spence. I'm not seeing much coverage for the album; Allmusic has two sentences within the bio for Spence, and that's the most I can find in (online) reliable sources. Gong show 00:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Angry professor (viral video)

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

These types of silly YouTube videos of a professor destroying something may be amusing, but they aren't notable at all. Beerest355 Talk 21:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - No sources for notability claimed in the article other than YouTube, which does not count as an independent source. No evidence of notability per WP:WEB. --Ahecht (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agree, no sources claiming real notability outside YouTube.—Σosthenes12 05:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Delete No reliable sources have paid any attention to this professor smashing of a student's phone, nor to it being shared on the internet and blog-o-sphere. Schmidt, 06:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete: No possibility of passing WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - in four different online news searches, I found exactly one reliable source. The YouTube video itself has "only" 156,079 hits in five years. Meh! Bearian (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to low participation in this discussion, if any editor opposes this result, I won't prejudice against revert and speedy renomination. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

List of The Andy Griffith Show writers

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

Duplication of List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes. This is just basically statistics for a television series with non-notable episodes and writers. Beerest355 Talk 20:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect - to List of The Andy Griffith Show episodes. There should be an "articles for redirection" page, since so many AfD articles should result in redirection. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirect I still don't see the need for writer lists (or director lists for that matter).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000 05:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ray W. Hays

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

A guy that is known ONLY for being in the army. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the entry again. He was an elected official in the California State Legislature. As such he meets the notability requirement under WP:POLITICIAN. You can read the discussion about the notability requirement for politicians on the notability pages, as it comes up over and over again. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy keep - member of the California legislature. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Nominator should withdraw as it's clear he didn't read the only sentence in the article carefully, or look at the reference titled "The Legislators of California", let alone follow WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Per WP:BIO, being elected to state office "does not guarantee that a subject should be included" on Knowledge. However, even if WP:POLITICIAN did not exist, searches of historical archives show enough material to satisfy WP:GNG. I added two more sources to help demonstrate that point. Andrew 03:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Snowball/speedy keep - Per what everyone else who took the time to read the guideline has already said due to him serving in a state legislature and that whole WP:POLITICIAN part of the biography notability guideline. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy keep per WP:POLITICIAN #1. Zad68 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep United States state legislators are notable. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kyle Ebecilio

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 2). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Christmas Who?

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability, no reliable sources. (IMDB and TV.com are textbook failures, and anyone can post a review on Reviewstream.) Beerest355 Talk 19:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 2). I can find some mention of it, but pretty much just in relation to the season as a whole. Other than reviews or recommendations for the season two box set, there just isn't anything out there that could be used as a RS to show notability for this specific episode. We could merge a little bit of information into the main season 2 page, but that's pretty much about it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect I think it might be good to redirect and merge as well. —Σosthenes12 05:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to ABS-CBN Corporation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bantay Kalikasan

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

~~Fails WP:GNG, notability warning in place for 4 years with no corrective action. If not delete at least redirect to ABS-CBN. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)~~ . Unscintillating (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect to ABS-CBN Corporation, most of the news coverage of the organization is by its parent organization ABS-CBN News, however there is other mentions of the organization in non-ABS-CBN sources, yet whether those are in-depth coverage sufficient to meet WP:ORG is questionable. As such I propose that any verified content (which none currently exists in this article) be merged into its parent organization, and if sufficient independent coverage is found that specifically talks about the organization itself, rather than just passing mentions, then the article can be recreated.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge to ABS-CBN Corporation - as it is, most coverage is by ABS-CBN itself, and at present there isn't enough independent coverage to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect-After a quick look, I also think it would be good to merge and redirect to ABS-CBN Corporation. —Σosthenes12 06:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4. postdlf (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

List of The Dick Van Dyke Show writers

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a meaningless list that simply duplicates facts already available at The Dick Van Dyke Show episodes. I understand for stuff like Family Guy to have their own writers list, but most of the writers there are notable. None of these are. Beerest355 Talk 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ang Ching Hui

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

Notable for only one major role, sporadic acting career at best. Her Star Awards nomination could be added to the article for The Vagrant. Paul 1953 (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is not a case of WP:BLP1E. We do not expect such an actor to win multiple awards. One Star Award is enough to signify WP:GNG, coupled with her being known for her P&T role. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This debate was not listed under CAT:AFD, nor was it included in the appropriate log. I've relisted it and added it to the AFD log for 20 June 2013. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 16:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Gregory Zapantis

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

Non notable with single source to the company he works for Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete I can find the subject mentioned in a couple of restaurant reviews as the chef, but that just confirms a man with a job; no evidence that the subject has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Notable chef with plenty of coverage in book, newspapers and magazines to warrant inclusion and meet notability guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep - Weakly meets WP:BASIC: , , . Northamerica1000 07:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Vesa Juhani Alakulppi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vesa Juhani Alakulppi (United States Army officer)

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

This individual does not fit the Knowledge essay on notability please refer to WP:SOLDIER for guidance. Feickus (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.Feickus (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Junior officer in receipt of a single third-level decoration. Not notable enough. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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) 18:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. EricSerge (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkmoon Ritual

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

Completed two demos. No indication that this group meets criteria in WP:BAND. Taroaldo ✉ 18:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Non notable music group. Eduemoni 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Knowledge:Notability (music) page says "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." In this case, yes, the group may not be that notable, however, Knowledge appears not to have any other coverage of this group, and, it is my belief that a person should be able to research anything & everything on Knowledge, including this group. Also, please note that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."

As well, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject for advice on where to look for sources.
Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." This would be a better way to proceed than deletion.

Thanks. NHCLS (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps you should review WP:RS, WP:V, and even WP:YFA for starters. You are also wrong to imply that other editors have not attempted to establish notability prior to engaging in the deletion discussion. Taroaldo ✉ 19:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have noticed that other editors have tried to establish notability. My general point was just that I believe that deletion should be used as a last resort, if necessary, and I fail to see how this articles does not contribute to widening Knowledge's coverage of culture. I know that it is said that "Knowledge is not a directory of everything in existence" but i disagree. Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: The article fails to establish this group's notability, and a quick Google search revealed no reliable sources indicating this band's notability. The only sources used are Metal Archives (not a reliable source) and a lyrics site (which I also doubt is a reliable source). Not even Allmusic has an article on them. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Google search doesn't really net any results other than lyrics. As much as I hate to say it... I don't think this band is notable. Dusti 20:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Notes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete: This band has no notability. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Although I can sympathize with the sentiment that one should be able to look up everything, the consensus is that Knowledge is not about WP:EVERYTHING. A band that has managed only a couple of demos and then broke up without there being coverage in reliable sources does not meet Knowledge's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Robert A. Bryan

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

Does not appear to meet Knowledge:Notability (academics) criteria. His major claim to notability is being interim president for a very brief period at two universities. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Non notable academic persona. Doesn't meet specific criteria and also fails GNG Eduemoni 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Did anyone actually review the linked sources in the footnotes? There are multiple non-trivial references to Bryan in multiple, independent, reliable sources, thus satisfying the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Nothing more is required. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. While there is wide-ranging coverage in multiple major newspapers of Bryan's career at the University of Florida, and later at the University of Central Florida and the University of South Florida, here is one particularly good example: . Please note that it is a two-page article, with the bulk of the text on the second page. In addition to the linked newspaper articles in the Knowledge article footnotes, here's a link to the complete Google News Archive search: . There are dozens of news articles, and the depth of coverage is more than sufficient to satisfy the GNG standard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. Specifically, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." He was the president of three large Division I universities, it doesn't get higher than that in American education administration. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. Interim president is not the same as president, but doing it three times is enough for me, especially in light of the newspaper coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep, and easily, per WP:ACADEMIC. Silly nomination, imo. --Zeng8r (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Protect Life Act

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

It was unlikely ever to become law anyway, but now it's just dead news (and see WP:NOTNEWS) with no more coverage. NB - I made this and am nominating it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Support author's request to delete own article. I agree with the author's decision to have a full discussion instead of speedy deletion, because the subject is notable (350,000 Google hits). Bwrs (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Shaima Alawadi

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an article I myself created. Back when I did so, it seemed that this case would have WP:PERSISTENCE as it was initially thought to be a hate crime and would have been the first murder of a Muslim woman to be prosecuted as such, but it seems now that it was a routine news event with passing coverage as the case continues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

delete fails WP:EVENT and WP:PERSISTENCE. I appreciate the honesty in the article creator asking for deletion. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable murder. Wouldn't this fit Template:Db-self? Beerest355 Talk 21:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sources support her notability - specious nomination by sock of blocked User:Puppetfunny (NAC) Canuck 11:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Noah Cyrus

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

known only for miley cyrus's sister. Kgk1g2kgkh (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (categories)

Speedy keep, obviously. Specious nomination. Sources confirm notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - clearly notable in her own right, as the sources support.Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - She is known for Miley Cyrus's sister, but she is also an actor.Ghostboy1997 (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - she only acted because she is Miley Cyrus sister.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.243.46 (talk • contribs) June 28, 2013
Speedy Keep and open Sockpuppet Investigation Note nomination for Billy Ray Cyrus at same time and for same reason by "Different" account Userpassword11111. Eauhomme (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - the article could use better sourcing, but this is clearly a famous actor from a famou acting family. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious and blatant silly nomination with WP:IDONTLIKE reason (Non Admin Closure). Eduemoni 18:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Billy Ray Cyrus

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

known for miloey cyrus daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpassword11111 (talk • contribs) 10:16, June 27, 2013‎

Speedy keep, obviously. Silly nomination. Article is well sourced and it's perfectly clear Cyrus's notability is independent of his daughter's. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and warn nominator for disruption. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Really? He's not known for Achy Breaky Heart? I agree with Carrite about warning nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Keep' - Completely meritless "nomination". Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Marko Mikulić

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as original PRODder, non-notable youth player, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL, hasn't played in a fully professional league. Appears to fail WP:GNG - not subject to significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

American Mastiff

AfDs for this article:

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

The last nomination of this article was closed as no consensus-no prejudice to renomination, nearly six months ago. I did not renominate it immediately in the hope that sources would materialize in that time, but no such luck - there are still no sources. 99% of the hits for "American Mastiff" turn up breeder sites, self-published material, obviously unreliable sources, mirrors of this page, and information on American Mastiff bats and English Mastiffs who happen to be American - for example, the 'American Mastiff Club' that appears in numerous Google books results has nothing to do with this breed; it is a club for american owners of English Mastiffs. This breed just flat-out isn't notable. TKK 15:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment The best new references I could find were this book and this newspaper reference that would appear to indicate that one of the breed was shown in the 2007 Charleston Dog Show . My personal opinion is that this is borderline. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Just so you know, as far as the dog show, it was a canine good citizenship test, not a conformation show - the akc lets dogs of any breed participate, even mutts and unrecognized breeds, as the point is that "canine good citizens" have a certain amount of basic obedience training that makes them safe around kids. The breeds listed are whatever the owner put on the paperwork when they entered the testing. "All dogs, including both purebred and mixed breed dogs are welcome to participate in the AKC’s Canine Good Citizen (CGC) Program." As such, I wouldn't really say that the newspaper is too terribly reliable. I can't speak to Planet Dog at all, I don't know anything about it. -- TKK 18:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the dog show info and I agree that if the breed info was self-reported the news article doesn't prove much. The book reference is clearly WP:RS, the publishing info and ISBN are in the article and Worldcat shows its at a number of libraries. Is one WP:RS entry enough? There are certainly web-based sources but I have no idea how independent any of them are, e.g., Dog Breed Info Center . I wouldn't rely on them unless we've demonstrated their reliability somewhere else in breed articles. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

On the specific question of Dog Breed Info Center I raised, this RfC pretty clearly came down as not WP:RS. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Archive_7#RfC:_Dog_Breed_Info_--_reliable_source_or_not.3F. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You beat me to it. WP:DOG actually removes DBI if we find it in articles; it's a weird hybrid of seo scrape and user-submitted content. --TKK 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete I gave it my best shot but I don't think that the one WP:RS reference I could come up with is enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. If anyone else finds more before this closes, I'd revisit. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - insufficient refs to prove this is anything but English Mastiffs that happen to live in America (or dare I suggest a very small handful of enterprising breeders using it to promote a cross breed?). SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the issue for deletion isn't whether its a breed or cross breed, as notable cross breeds can also be the subjects of articles, see, e.g., Labradoodle. American mastiffs just don't meet our notability standards in either case. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 24.151...., what I was meaning is that IMO it completely fails WP:GNG as both a breed in its own right and as a cross/"designer" breed, so should be deleted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bernadette Rebienot

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

A complete lack of reliable sources; all claims to notability appear to stem from the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, which also appears to be the source of all information about her. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

merge and redirect all sources actually about 13, and her mention is in that context. Length of content easily supported as an inline section. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
merge and redirect as above. Secondary sources about her life before joining this group were not readily available online, and might require print or original journalistic research. 15:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: would also suggest merging Tsering Dolma Gyaltong into the Grandmothers article, and Rita Long Visitor Holy Dance into her sister's article, Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance. Djembayz (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we not imply WP:BUNDLE since that was a major problem in the previous round of AFD for this content. Lets just keep everyone on their own. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

delete nothing useful to merge, and the main article shouldn't exist anyway.24.22.129.215 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Dutch customs and etiquette

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

This is essentially a guide on dealing with Dutch people for foreigners, which seems a clear violation of wp:NOTGUIDE. Most of the material (which is highly anecdotal and essentially unsourced) is actually general European ettiquette, for which a separate article exists. ~~In fact this seems to be the only national version of an etiquette article.~~ A few other national etiquette exists, but they seem to have the same problems. Yoenit (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I just remembered that we now have a travelguide as a sister project. Perhaps we can transwiki it to Wikivoyage? Yoenit (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Not making a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS case, but this is not the only national level article. See Category:Etiquette by region for such examples as: Customs and etiquette in Italy and even Customs and etiquette in Hawaii. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. However, in my honest opinion those articles suffer from the exact same problems and should also be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Not Sure Actually quite an informative article. Lack of sources is a problem, but I'm sure some good ones could be found. I'm not sure about the "not a how-to" issue, since the main purpose of these articles is always going to be as a guide even if some people do have an impersonal intellectual interest in cultures and customs.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW this article is much better than Etiquette in Europe, which is a mish-mash. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep : Notable topic, covered in lots of sources. One book, another,a more general one that also covers Netherlands, discussed in travel books, etc. --Cyclopia 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that is relevant as I did not challenge the notability of the subject. Cooking recipes are also notable and there are thousands of books on them, yet we do not allow articles on cooking recipes on wikipedia. Yoenit (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  - You "fail to see how that is relevant"? Well, it happens Notability is basically the only relevant criteria for deletion or retention of articles. And in fact we host a lot of articles about recipes. We don't have the recipes themselves inside these articles per WP:NOTHOWTO, but that is a content issue, not an article existence issue (it would be in a few cases, e.g. if we were talking of an article called "How to make a cake" - not our case here). If your only concern with the article is that it is styled as a guide, then you can fix it by editing the article, and as such deletion policy requires us to keep. Deletion is not cleanup. --Cyclopia 12:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep : Probably not the best or most relevant article in Knowledge, but mostly harmless, clearly notable and sufficiently sourced. Arnoutf (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep per the sources presented above by User:Cyclopia. This topic clearly passes the threshold of WP:N. Northamerica1000 05:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but there are many books devoted to the subject, such as this additional one, so good sources clearly exist. -- 202.124.74.3 (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The nomination does not hold water, pardon the pun. This is exactly the sort of article that does get kept here, and with a little fixing and added citations, it should be a good start. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. I realize this is an unusually controversial deletion discussion, so I'll explain my reasoning in more detail than I usually do. This close does not reflect my personal belief about the notability of the subject, nor should it. As the closer of an Afd, my role is to judge whether the community has reached a consensus in their discussion, and what that consensus is.

Afd is not a vote, but it is helpful to consider what portion of the community is taking each position. About 25 users supported keeping the article, while around 30 supported deletion, and a few proposed merging and redirection to Jimbo Wales. Overall, the community is fairly evenly split about this case, which is unusual for a deletion discussion of this size. This does not necessarily mean that there is no consensus, because per our established guidelines, strength of argument is more important than strength of numbers.

Examining the arguments, on one hand, those advocating deletion correctly point out that notability is not inherited from having a famous spouse. They also argue that she has only received significant coverage for one event. Those advocating keeping the article dispute the latter claim, claiming that she has received enough coverage for her political and public relations activities to demonstrate notability. The key issue here seems to be whether this coverage is significant, and reasonable arguments about this have been made by both sides in roughly equal numbers. Whether coverage is significant enough to demonstrate notability is difficult to objectively prove, and we rely on community members to make judgment calls on the issue. I feel that no consensus has been reached in this situation, and as such I will not delete the article. This close does not mean that the article has to remain, however, the community can begin a new discussion at any time about whether to merge and redirect this. If anyone has complaints about this close, please come to my talk page and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Kate Garvey

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Classic BLP1E. Famous only for being married to our co-founder and notability can't be inherited. Absent that, there is no claim for separate notability and what little there is here can be perfectly well carried in Jimbo's article. Spartaz 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC) (edited to add I'd also be fine with a redirect if there was no consensus to delete. Spartaz 15:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC))

Delete. I can see no particular reason why a director of Freud Communications and former diary secretary of Tony Blair should merit an article under Knowledge:Notability (people) guidelines. As it presently stands, the article seems more concerned to discuss her marriage to Jimmy Wales than anything of relevance to her own notability. A simple search reveals that Garvey has attracted only limited comment other than in relation to her recent marriage, and since, as the creator of this article is no doubt aware, and as Spartaz above makes clear, notability is not inherited - or passed on via marriage - I suggest the article be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A few name-checks in relation to previous role in 10 Downing Street and her marriage to Wales but nothing substantial. Hack (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Marriage to a notable person does not confer separate notability. Anything relevant about this person would belong in the Jimmy Wales article alone. Collect (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This article was, of course, created in response to this piece from the New York Times Magazine. Redirect to Jimmy Wales#Personal life. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - a POINTy creation (editor should know better by now!), this person fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED, no evidence of independent notability, agree with MZMcBride's suggestion to redirect. Giant Snowman 14:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep from the NYT's article, "The following year at Davos, Wales and Garvey were both named “Young Global Leaders.” Seems notable enough. Who goes to Davos that is not notable, let alone being honored there? User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Um, if it is notable, where is the evidence that it was noted? Can you cite a source from that year (2007) that mentions Garvey being named as one of the 250 'leaders'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
~~Redirect~~. This should probably be a redirect, as per the above - either to the company or to Mr. Wales. See also the usual caveats, however - it is entirely possible that she will be involved in a venture that makes her more notable than she is at present, and then we're gonna want an article. Honestly, I think the notability is just barely enough to justify a keep, but that a redirect is the better option (for now). UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

On further consideration, put me down for Keep. I think a redirect would be a fine option, but the more I look at the subject and the sourcing, I can't help but think that the case for Keeping this article is the stronger one at this point. There are side issues, though - it's distasteful to see it at AFD within hours of creation, despite no attempt at discussing the matter with the author or attempting to fix the problems cited. I also think there are people recommending delete solely because of the identity of the subject's husband. After reading the discussion below, I honestly almost recommended that this be closed as a Trainwreck. It may yet. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge and redirect, although I'd be fine with Delete as well. At this point, no notability. Intothat darkness 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect, although I too would be fine with Delete as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete, per above. --Conti|✉ 15:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete or merge with Jimbo. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - clear example of WP:BLP1E - Alison 15:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Subject of the article does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:BIO. The article seems have been created to describe her as the wife of Jimmy Wales, so maybe merging some of the content into the section of his article about his personal life might make sense. Deli nk (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I'll just quote Garvey's entry from the World Economic Forum, who named her a "Young Global Leader":
Kate Garvey is Director of Freud Communications, where she specializes in promoting global campaigns and issues, including the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Product (RED), Live Earth, tcktcktck, 1Goal: Education for All, Gimme Shelter Campaign for UNHCR, and Tony Blair Faith Foundation Maternal Mortality campaign. Previously, she worked for Bob Geldof and Richard Curtis on the Make Poverty History Campaign and Live 8 concerts. Her career began in politics where, from 1997 until 2005, she worked for Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street in the Prime Minister's Private Office. Garvey was responsible for the presentation and planning of the prime minister's events and visits, domestically and abroad, as well as major roles in the 1997 and 2001 general elections and running Tony Blair's election tour in 2005.

Not just Jimbo's wife, apparently... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep The claim of BLP1E is utter nonsense because the subject was getting her name in the papers over 10 years ago, before Knowledge even existed. Some examples of coverage which has nothing to do with Knowledge.

The Economist 2000: "Tony Blair's Diary Secretary, Kate Garvey, is situated close to his office, deliberately to guard his door and keep the diary running to time ..."
Daily Telegraph 2010 "Even Kate Garvey, his diary custodian, has been feted because, she ran the diary with a grip of iron and was quite prepared to squeeze the balls very hard indeed of anyone who interfered."

She appears in reference works such as the Civil Service Yearbook and Dod's Parliamentary Companion. If that were all, then we might merge with some article about the Blair government. But her work for Freud since and her marriage to Wales means that merger to a single target doesn't work because there are too many disparate topics. Warden (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you don't know where to redirect an article is no reason to keep it. Giant Snowman 15:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

More nonsense. We don't know why a reader might want information about this person. It is therefore sensible to maintain the page as a hub for all the various contexts and roles this person has had so far. We seem to have ample reliable sources to maintain such a stub and there is no requirement for us to develop this into an extensive rambling essay. Knowledge is an encyclopedia and such works commonly have terse biographical entries for people. Warden (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the mind of an Article Rescue Squadroner, Snowman. They rarely meet an article that they won't fight tooth and nail for on the most absurd of pretenses. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the ARS has anything to do with this. More relevant is that this discussion has been canvassed at Tarc's hangout - Wikipediocracy. Warden (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been mentioned at Wikipediocracy, but no canvasing has taken place that I can see. I contribute to the forum there, but disagree with Alison, Scott and Tarc on this issue. -- Hillbillyholiday 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice evasion attempt there Warden, but I actually saw it first at Jimbo's talk page. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The biggest canvassing push seems to have been AndytheGrump's posting at the BLP noticeboard, right at the start. Immediately, several BLPN regulars show up to !vote delete (e.g. Hack, Collect and GiantSnowman) and they are still drifting in (e.g. Turelio). Warden (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah Warden. Never one to let the facts get in the way of a good argument. I didn't start the BLPN thread: . Not that there was anything wrong with the thread anyway. BLPN is there for a reason. And the original post there was self-evidently correct if you look at the history of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The effect was much the same. But user:Y who started that thread seems mysterious. They became an admin here on their first day of editing without an RfA. Curiouser and curiouser... Warden (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

...which has precisely nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Tarc started this line of discussion with the false assertion about the ARS. I don't understand all the Wikipolitics that's really happening here here yet but the more I investigate, the more I find. I've already flushed out one bogus editor (Ann Bardrach) and it certainly seems relevant to proper consideration of the matter that we understand the full background to the comments made. Myself, I have no particular axe to grind pro or con the subject. But I am outraged that that this is being presented as a BLP1E issue when it so clearly isn't. The trouble with your position is that you've rushed into it without checking the facts. Asserting that a person of this stature is not notable is an insult to them and such derogatory claims should not be made so lightly. Warden (talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Warden, please take your bogus outrage and your tinfoil hat elsewhere. I for one have treated this AfD as any other, and have based my delete !vote on the simple premise that Garvey's career simply hasn't been covered in any substantial depth by sources. She gets the occasional passing mention in articles about other subjects - but so do lots of people. Knowledge has standards of notability, and despite your routine attempts to bullshit around them, they still apply. And as for your comments about a 'bogus editor', I note that you have not applied the same description to another single-purpose account participating in this AfD - could this be because they !voted 'keep'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you mean. User:Sep332 was already tagged as an {{spa}} by someone else when I considered them. And 24.151.116.25 seems to have enough history to avoid that canard. Warden (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've met them before and I'll meet them again. Absolute stubbornness in the face of clear consensus in direct opposition. Giant Snowman 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has created many thousands of stubby BLPs such as George Davies (footballer born 1996) and Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994). Please explain why we should have articles about those teenagers, known only for kicking a ball about on a few occasions, but not for someone who was at the centre of power for many years and continues to associate with the great and the good. Warden (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as a POINTy creation and yell at the creator. -- Y not? 15:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect Outside of the context of her relationship with Jimmy Wales, coverage in secondary sources is relatively minimal. The Economist article linked above is really just a brief mention. GabrielF (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - This shouldn't even be a discussion, notability is not inherited, as there is nothing this person has done that is notable, apart from being married to someone semi-famous. A "diary secretary", whatever the hell that is, to a Prime Minister would never come within spitting distance of article-worthiness, so the claim of prior significant overage is utter garbage. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A diary secretary is significant because they control access to the leader. Other famous examples include Marcia Falkender and John Colville. Warden (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Falkender is notable for others things, such as the lawsuit coverage and a peerage. Haven't looked at Colville yet, but I won't be surprised to find the same. Nice try, but as always, a fail. Tarc (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Jock Colville who is notable for publishing his accounts of his time with Winston Churchill. Its not a fair comparison. GabrielF (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Colville was secretary to a famous prime minister and went on to do more afterwards. Kate Garvey is just the same and so merits inclusion. For an example of a secretary who did not work for a major leader and did not have a significant life afterwards, see an article created by GabrielF: Barbara Robbins. She was a secretary who had no especially prominent position but just got KIA in Vietnam. Please explain why it's ok for GabrielF to create such an article about a secretary but not for other editors to write about even more prominent examples. Such inconsistency suggests that the real agenda here is to attack Jimbo. One sees it said openly on Wikipediocracy that editors like Russavia and Fram are now queuing up to have a go at Jimbo. What is going on? Warden (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The comparisons that you're making are not reasonable. Barbara Robbins was the first American woman to die in the Vietnam War, the first female CIA employee to die in the service and the youngest CIA employee to die in the service. There are sources about her written 40+ years later. GabrielF (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do we have an article about the first Vietnamese woman to be blown up by a bomb? It seems that what matters for notability is being American. Not even marrying an American is enough, no matter how important your previous role. You're just the American's wife now, right? Warden (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep The position as Diary Secretary is notable, see:

"While the job was conceived as clerical, in practice and particularly since the appointment became political, the Diary Secretary has come to accumulate considerable potential authority, balancing the complicated demands and pressures on the Prime Minister's time. Tony Blair's Diary Secretary, Kate Garvey, is situated close to his office, deliberately to guard his door.."

The Powers Behind the Prime Minister: The Hidden Influence of Number Ten. p. 1987. -- Hillbillyholiday 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Further notability:

"Go and buy ice cream from that van there, one for you, one for Gordon, to show togetherness and being normal," Blair was instructed by an aide Kate Garvey, who pointed him in the direction of Mr Whippy.

"No," Blair protested, "It's absurd...we're two guys in suits, one is the prime minister, the other Chancellor of the Exchequer. What's normal about it?"

"Just do it," Kate Garvey said menacingly.

Blair, of course, did as he was instructed.

Lessons from the Top: How successful leaders tell stories to get ahead - and stay there. -- Hillbillyholiday 19:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (Labour politician)'s response to the incident, here:

"For me, New Labour died when Tony bought Gordon an ice cream in 2005." -- Hillbillyholiday 23:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep Being Tony Blair's diary secretary gets her across the line without even considering the liaison with Jimbo.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Not to be dense, but diary secretary doesn't currently exist and has no incoming links (well, now it has one, I suppose...). Is this similar to a Private Secretary? It's difficult to support an argument that X's Y is notable when Y isn't even defined here. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Warden addresses much of that point, see above. Also, I have it on divine and royal authority that she is the most connected woman in London.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

From Private Secretary, "Depending upon the seniority of their political principal, a Private Secretary may him or herself be regarded as an important official in their own right; the Queen's Private Secretary and the Downing Street Private Secretary being the most important." User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Private Secretary is usually the head of a private office. There would probably be over a dozen people in the private office. Diary secretary is much lower down the totem pole and would be junior to assistant private secretaries and their ilk. As a political appointee Garevy would have more status than usual but I doubt very much that she could be classed as anything other then a spad. That's just not notable in itself without substantial coverage - which is lacking. Odd sentences here and there don't add up to meeting the GNG. I'm sure Garvey was a significant figure in Blair's support team but that does not = notable by our standards. Spartaz 04:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Spartaz's notability standards don't seem so high in other cases such as Maureen Barton-Chitty - a BLP which they created recently and for which few detailed sources seem available. Warden (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'll be with you once I get my head around the concept of a prime minister who isn't famous. Perhaps Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman or the Marquess of Bute? Neither of whom the erstwhile Miss Garvey worked for, but rather Mr. Blair, who remains rather well-known in his own right.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't seem to be particularly notable at present. — Scott • talk 16:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Seeming" notable assumes a subjective judgement on merit; notability in WP terms is an objective process involving demonstrating the existence of multiple independently-published instances of coverage dealing with the subject of the article in a substantial and presumably accurate way. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Mmm... repeating the exact same thing that I was saying, only in many more words, in an attempt to spin it into something different? That doesn't seem like you, Tim. I'm disappointed. — Scott • talk 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Disappointed?!? Hmmmm. Well it seems like you're not addressing the sources cited: Guardian, Telegraph, New York Times Magazine.' Feel free. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - In addition to the sources cited above, Garvey receives substantial coverage in this new piece from the New York Times Magazine — Amy Chozick, "Jimmy Wales is Not an Internet Billionaire." Clear pass of our General Notability Guideline. Additionally, this strikes me as a rather POINTy nomination, I will mention. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This also seems like fairly significant coverage although I have used up my 10 free articles from the Telegraph this month. Just do a google news archive search. There is more than cursory mention of her, discussing her role at Number Ten and some controversy over how she got her next job. This says she was a special advisor to Blair, who was at the time of writing prime minister. This confirms her role as special advisor. Clear keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In the NYT article, there are two paragraphs devoted to Garvey out of 33 in total (~200 words v ~4500 total), most of which is used to name-drop tangentially related celebrities. That's hardly significant coverage. Hack (talk) 05:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You are raising the bar. A paragraph is usually considered sufficient for purposes of counting whether she has received multiple coverage. And I wasn't counting the NYT article anyway, thanks for the addition. The British coverage is far more serious and considerable.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Trout for the nominator for hauling this piece to AfD only 1 hour and 8 minutes after creation, without any flagging. Utterly bad faith handling of this, no matter what one's opinion is of ultimate notability. That sort of crap should not happen, period. Carrite (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, bullshit. The article was created by a longtime Knowledge-and-Jimbo-insider who should have known better than to create a puff-piece on an obviously non-notable individual. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, Tarc, let's start with the fact that you are complaining about the editor and not the content for starters; that you are wrongly characterizing a biographical stub as a "puff-piece" for secondsies, and making a subjective statement about "non-notability" rather than dealing with cited sources for dessert. But you did get to use the word bullshit, so you probably scored a momentary point with someone who is skimming rather than paying attention to the pointy barf you are ladling... Carrite (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You really do your Wikipediocracy handle justice with these sorts of comments. If certain editors would think for half a moment before rushing off to whip out an article for every little thing they see in the news, we'd all have a lot less time wasted at AfD. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite. Ceoil (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - insufficiently notable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Independent notability not established and surely would be if it existed. A redirect to Jimmy's page is probably fine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment - Not that it is a final decider, but has the subject received considerable media coverage or and articles that can be posted here? --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not in articles which are substantially about her, no, from what I have been able to locate. She gets the odd mention in passing (i.e. single sentences) in relation to her work with Blair and her later PR job, but otherwise, coverage is confined to her marriage to Jimbo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I would then lean towards redirect to Jimbo's article, if that's where folks were talking about redirecting to. --Malerooster (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Merge & Redirect to Jimbo's page. A few mentions in secondary sources but nothing to establish independent notability. Should not be outright deleted as someone may stumble upon it in another subject and redlinks are just no fun for those people. Jguy _Talk 18:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect - I can justify in my mind that she meets at least minimum notability but I think we should merge her articles content into his for now. If it grows to contain enough content to stand on its own then we can split it back out. Kumioko (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - I think there are plenty of sources cited here to establish that she has been "noted" on her own. Sep332 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Sep332 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete This is not a BLP1E case, in my opinion, because we aren't really talking about a singular event and she seems to be noted for her connection to Blair as much as her connection to Wales. However, she isn't noted much for either. I am not seeing the kind of significant coverage that would merit an independent article. A redirect to Jimbo's page seems undue as she is not known simply for her relationship with him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. I think the sources suggest that she is at least marginally notable. Everyking (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep As passing WP:BASIC. Links gathered from above entries: , , , , . 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: If anyone is in doubt about the article's intention, just have a look at the first revision: "Kate Garvey, Jimmy Wales's third wife, according to The New York Times, does not have a Knowledge page." WTF? --Conti|✉ 21:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why should it matter what the original author's intent was? There is an actual article existing now, and we are only discussing the subject's notability. Everyking (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per comment by User:The Devil's Advocate. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete Notability is not inherited, and basing the lead on being someone's Diary Secretary says all that is needed on that. Many of the projects listed in the Career section were worked on by hundreds or even thousands of people—we do not write articles about each individual who worked on a particular campaign. When a politician writes a book, naturally they are going to mention the people in their life—that does not make those people notable. According to the article, Blair thinks a PhD thesis could be written on the "importance of scheduling". That is a throw-away comment on the importance of a function, and says nothing about a particular person. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I checked the references and most of them mention her in the context of being married to Jimbo Wales, not for individual actions or accomplishments. Plus, I think it is harassment on our part to subject Wales' spouse to a WP BLP when Knowledge is still unable to properly manage or safeguard the content of most BLPs. If Jimmy Wales isn't aware of that, then he needs to get a little more educated on the current state of this project he helped co-found with Larry Sanger. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Sep332, there are plenty of sources cited.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Not really a BLP1E, since the article subject is not even known for this one "event." This is a more mundane case of horribly failing WP:GNG. The subject has been received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, it looks as if the article's creator is "Disrupting Knowledge to Make a point." What point is that? Perhaps he's a Jimbo "groupie," or even worse, a stalker of some sort. Perhaps I will open page 5A of the New York Times tomorrow, randomly point to a column, and write a Knowledge article for the name closest to where my fingertip ends up, GNG be damned. Ann Bardrach (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ann Bardrach's only contribution, prior to this discussion, was to redirect an article about chess to fisting! Warden (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Point of Information I'm not voting here but just wanted to point out that Jonathan Powell, a Downing St Chief of Staff for Tony Blair has written that the position of Diary Secretary for the Prime Minister that Garvey had is one of the most powerful in the government. See http://books.google.com/books?id=wGly7MzcklwC&pg=PA98&dq=kate+garvey&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yuzMUanKDLGP0QGq-YDgAQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=kate%20garvey&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.24.133 (talk) — 76.217.24.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yea. See also; hyperbole. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete per rationales by The Devil's Advocate and GiantSnowman. --Túrelio (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per GiantSnowman. Mr T 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, not a WP:BLP1E (she was notable even before marrying Jimbo, as correctly pointed above), article creator intent is irrelevant. --Cyclopia 09:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. The references shown by Hillbillyholiday81 as examples of notability show the opposite, that Garvey is mentioned in passing, no more. The other references have the same problem. Not notable enough. Binksternet (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Other than bossing the PM and Chancellor about, did you know that Garvey also came up with the Peter Mandelson "Bobby" deception, as mentioned in books by Donal MacIntyre and Cherie Blair?:

"It was Kate Garvey, Tony's diary secretary, who came up with the idea that Peter should have a nom de guerre.."

"..as a way of keeping Mandelson's extensive involvement in the campaign clandestine." -- Hillbillyholiday 10:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Per OP and Giant Snowman. Obvious case of WP:INHERITED and WP:POINT. — Richard BB 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - WP:INHERITED. Agree with Collect. I'm not impressed by the "but we can" arguments. Ceoil (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Weak Delete, basically per The Devil's Advocate above. This isn't a straightforward case of BLP1E - there's plenty of sources mentioning her in various contexts over the years. However, there's nothing that could be called significant coverage of her, and taking together I don't think it adds up to notability at this time. The claims to notability in the article, once the puffery is ignored, aren't all that remarkable; the only real basis for it here is her links with notable people, and creating an article on such a basis is discouraged by WP:INHERITED. Robofish (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment In response to Robofish's comment, someone who knows everybody is notable, which was her work for the prime minister and for Freud. Now the comment, quoted from our policy page, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Clearly not the case here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would say she is at least as notable as Larry and Freya.:-)Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep I agree with Hillbillyholiday, mentions of her in books count towards her notability. There are a lot of book results to sort through, but the ones he mentioned seem notable. She gets mentioned in the news also. A lot of the news results are hidden behind paywalls. Did others in her position as Dairy Secretary for the leader of Britain get the coverage she did for that job? While she got a lot of coverage for marrying Knowledge's founder , there were mentions of her in the media before then. Dream Focus 13:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sure the positions are roughly equivalent, but Garvey was the Diary Secretary to the Prime Minister of England, not the Dairy Security to the leader of Britain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't look like she satisfies GNG, at least not based on the references in the article. Except for the wedding articles at the bottom of the list, and discounting WEF as a primary source, none of the other articles is about her. Notability is not derived and therefore we shouldn't have an article on Garvey. She definitely does not satisfy the "significant coverage" criterion at WP:GNG. --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep It's WP:BLP1E not WP:BLP4E. Diary Secretary for Tony Blair, director at Freud Communications, 2007 Young Global Leader at World Economic Forum and married to Jimmy Wales. She was responsible for the 1994 Peter Mandelson "Bobby" gambit. CallawayRox (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep per CallawayRox. I realize this vote is inappropriate, since the way we're supposed to settle these things is to look up the creator, look up the AfDer, speculate on their motives, and make a political decision, but I think the article has enough notable content to make an informative biography of serious educational interest and I don't see why it is all of a sudden bad for us to have those. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kinda like what you do every time an editor brings up a valid concern about Commons porn and smut, when you stick up for your Commons cronies, attack the poster, and allege it is all just one big Wikipediocracy setup? What a hypocrite. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There are no valid concerns about "smut", only unapologetic attitudes of vandalism. Moreover, that has to do with pointing out "canvassing" in a Wiki that foolishly and ineffectively attempts to prohibit it, because it means opinions are unrepresentative. I was not alleging that here (many of us doubtless saw this on Jimbo's page, but I have no idea how that affects our attitudes overall; I don't see any obvious way to tell which way our regard for him is supposed to sway our votes, yet certainly there are some implications along that line above.) Wnt (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, there are no valid reasons for retaining this article, just an Old Hand from the Knowledge olden days writing a puff-piece on Jimbo's behalf, squeezing blood from the ~~stone~~ sources to scrape together a bio for a woman who would otherwise be unknown and unheralded outside of the circles of Brit political wonks. See, this is how you Play the Game, Wnt-Style. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Say what??? I can respond only that hey, I liked Knowledge's olden days, and I don't see why the world isn't entitled to know whatever British political wonks know. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The combo of being Blair's secretary and Jimbo's wife strikes me as enough to clear notability guidelines. NickCT (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I'm seeing lots of articles referencing Garvey, both in relation to Wales and Blair. I'm a little more confident in my "keep" vote. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:GNG, since independent notability hasn't been demonstrated. A redirect would be ok, but not necessary, in my opinion. First Light (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep There are adequate sources if we want to keep. Since the discussion is, as is often the case, considering other factors than sources, If we judge notability by actual notability of a person in a position, it would be as key personal assistant to a head of government. From Thomas Cromwell's day if not before, such people typically have a very substantial amount of power. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep She had a life and a job before marrying Jimbo. A fairly important one. Saying otherwise is like calling her a gold digger.--Auric talk 12:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - I see no evidence of independent notability. Garion96 (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Per CallawayRox. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. It is a valid search term, and there is sufficient evidence of light coverage by multiple sources, with figures now approaching the dozens, but the focus of those articles are largely about her spouse where she receives passing coverage in the process. I think the best solution to maintain WP:BLP compliance, and best serve the interests of our readers, the community, and procedures currently in place is a merge and redirect under the current circumstances. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge and redirect where? And how are the sources from before her wedding focused on her spouse?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Jimmy Wales. I have checked the sources and I am unconvinced she passes GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Cavarrone 20:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why Jimbo in particular? Why not Prime Ministership of Tony Blair, if a redirect must be done? Because they are married? If you are correct (I don't concede that you are), it should be to where she got the most notoriety, and she certainly got more as a political figure than as Mrs. Benevolent Dictator for Life.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Because Prime Ministership of Tony Blair does not even mention her name, and I don't see how her position as a diary secretary should deserve to be mentioned there. Cavarrone 10:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The insufficiencies of that article should not affect this one. Anyone who can order Tony Blair to get Mr Whippy, and he does, is notable in my book.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Callaway Rox and DGG. Plenty of substantial mentions in books and press articles published over three decades, covering various aspects of her private and public life. Andreas JN 466 23:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I completely disagree that notability is not inherited. On the contrary, it is absolutely inherited, i.e. the British Royal Family. What else are they famous for had their fame not been inherited. I find the article on Kate Garvey interesting, worthwhile keeping and so did the NY times in its recent article on her. The fact that she is married to James Wales is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco8104 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 29 June 2013‎ — Francisco8104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Response. You are right. "Notability" is absolutely inherited: When the "inheritance" comes from membership in the centuries-old reigning royal family of a major World Power. See the distinction here between being a member of the British Royal Family and being married to Jimmy Wales? (nothing personal against Jimbo) The sad part is, you probably don't see the distinction. Step away from the computer for once and get some perspective in life. Ann Bardrach (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Kind of harsh, don't you think? AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I feel she's done enough notable things and held enough notable posts to not be a problem under BLP1E. She's the director of Freud Communications. She was Tony Blair's diary secretary, and she's mentioned in his archives. There's no reason for the article not to exist. I mean the only reason this is coming up for discussion is because people think she's being included in wikipedia for no reason other than being Jimbo's wife. That's not the case here. Shashwat986 → talk 08:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep, based mostly on her tenure as a powerful Diary Secretary (which is why re-directing to Jimbo is inappropriate). Looking up someone obscure (the WP is littered with obscure sports stars from the 1920s, etc) and drawing a blank is worse than having around some borderline notable entries. WP:PAPER. It is likely true that the article was created in response to that line in the NYT magazine (I had the exact same thought - it's as if the reporter was issuing a challenge), but so what? The question ought to simply be whether or not she's notable. Noel (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It is true that a diary secretary holds some real power, much like the executive secretary of any powerful figure. However, such power is behind the scenes, not necessarily the subject of significant commentary from observers. The lack of significant coverage of Garvey is what is at issue here, not whether she held a powerful position. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Maybe I'm missing something, but this isn't even close IMHO. There is a wealth of notability in the cited articles, long before marrying Jimbo. AND the marriage to Mr. Wales does indeed add to the notability, but it does not create it. Now somebody quick go waste 2 minutes of your life looking up my edit history and making snarky comments😊 TjoeC (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Weak Keep Kate Garvey was the gate keeper, the custodian of the diary......To call it 'being in charge of the diary' is like calling Lennon and McCartney people who wrote songs:........ -Tony Blair page 20.

Per Noel above, redirecting the article to Jimmy Wales would be wrong, when her notability is from her own employment including Freud, not from an WP:INHERITED marriage.Martin451 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Article seems well written enough for me; certainly more detailed than "Jimmy Wales' wife". Virtually all reliable sources, no apparent POV bias as of present. Sorry Spartaz; I think your conception of Kate Gravey was a bit narrow at the time of its creation (when all I presume that you knew of her was the fact Jimbo was her beau and nothing else). While I agree that notability in the Knowledge-sense isn't inherited by being someone's spouse, if they do enough notable stuff on their own they should be allowed to have an article on Knowledge as well. Ellomate (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep T. trichiura Infect me 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep: good GNG and sourcing arguments made. Deletes lack rationale. Per NickCT, Warden, Carrite, etc. she has several RSes mentioning her. Also the article has already been expanded significantly, with meaty content. Her notability is not just as a sidekick spouse. It results from several events, perhaps even thematically related:

Blair staffer
Director of prominent public relations firm
World Economic Forum "young leader"
Jimbo relationship and marriage

TCO (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Most of those favoring deletion are citing BLP-1E. This doesn't apply here, Garvey already had a legitimate claim to fame prior to her marriage. It's a question of sourcing, and as this article continues to develop, it's pretty clear that sufficient sources are out there for an easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK. Yes, they have a rationale stated. Fair enough. Interesting that it was so heavy delete to start (almost a snow) and that with time to look at the content, it is now over 50% keep. Have a couple more sources coming in (pre wedding). But even the wedding clips did not seem like they were "Wales gets married", but more like power couple unites or Wales marries Blair staffer.TCO (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I don't want to go all Jane Austen here but Jimbo definitely married a significant, influential, and well-known figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~ If Kate Garvey is famous enough to have been honored at The Davos Economic Forum why does she not deserve a wikipedia entry ?Francisco8104 (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I find it odd that this user's first and only edits have been to Talk:Kate Garvey and this AfD. — Richard BB 07:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  - Four edits, two of them keep !votes on one AfD. !vote struck out.Martin451 (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  - Perhaps their were visiting Knowledge after reading a news article about her marrying Jimbo Wales, that all in the media. That could've brought them here. Since they didn't know they don't need to say "keep" every time they post something, then they are obviously a new user, and not someone's sockpuppet. Dream Focus 07:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Summary of delete arguments so far.: The article subject clearly fails WP:GNG in that it (she) was not the subject of "substantial coverage" in the sources cited. Nobody arguing "keep" has addressed this at all. Sure, Garvey has been tangentially mentioned in these "sources," but not in the manner that satisfies GNG. Ask this simple question: Was Garvey the subject of "significant coverage" in that NYT Magazine piece on Jimbo? (no.)

Until those arguing keep can demonstrate that Garvey received significant non-trivial coverage, this discussion remains clearly to delete. I think the consensus is, however, that this is not a case of BLP1E. Thank you. Ann Bardrach (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't explained your only mainspace edit outside of this topic! -- Hillbillyholiday 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is self-explanatory - someone confused their "good hand" and "bad hand" sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh, well it does get confusing sometimes..! -- Hillbillyholiday 15:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm not an insider nor a poster at wikidiocracy, or whatever it's called. But I'm struck, coming upon this AfD by way of reading an entry at BLP/N, by the vehemence of the comments and votes! here, and the utter abandonment of the notion that one should focus on the edits and not the editors. I take no position on the merits, I've got quite enough dramah in my own life, thank you.
However, I'd like to nominate this discussion, once it's closed, to be the centerpiece of an essay about the worst ways to deal with subjects and topics in which wikipedia itself, and our community's partisans, factions, champions and detractors figure in such a discussion.
That is, if some lunatic masochist would care to write one. David in DC (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Soft Keep & Merge with Jimmy Wales. Per sources, she was a Diary Secretary for Tony Blair - no, doesn't pass GNG yet. Like Ali Hewson, Melinda Gates - suspect this is shifting sand and soon article should be re-created. Just not, per guidelines, there at this moment. EBY (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment This article says that Jimmy Wales has often described Kate Garvey as "the most connected woman in London." If Jimmy Wales is correct, then Kate Garvey should have a Knowledge article.

Two minor points: anon commenters are discouraged in an AfD. And pulling 'What Would Jimmy Do?' into the debate just adds smoke to David in DC's bonfire. There should be, in my opinion, a Godwin's Law on this very thing.EBY (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

When have anon commenters ever been discouraged in AFDs? Only when they disagree with you perhaps? Don't invent new rules out of nowhere. Dream Focus 20:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Alestorm. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ian Wilson (musician)

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

Another drummer currently in an obscure band called Catharist. He appeears to be known for being replaced by another unknown drummer called Peter Alcorn, who is also a member of an obscure metal band known to few people. It is most likely self-created, with phrases like: However, his finest work came in Questioned By Theory, performing backing vocals as well as drums. Delete. Bluidsports (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable member of a non-notable band; I'm surprised this article lasted for three years. Erpert 08:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Redirect to Alestorm, the notable band of which he was a member (assuming the band is indeed notable). No individual notability apparent to warrant a separate article at this time. Gong show 00:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not at all notable. Peter Somerville (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For Ruin (band)

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

Overly detailed advert for an obscure metal band from Ireland. The article has had little activity in the last 3 years, therefore hardly the work of an active band. Promotional and probably written by a band member. Delete Bluidsports (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. This page has no sources, and the band has little to no notability. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. A search for this band including the names of band members yeilded nothing on Google news archive, which other than press coverage also generates results for music sites. The article is too detailed and has failed to produce one cite during its lengthy existence on wiki. PC7705 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete There are no sources and, it would appear, no notability, as I can find nothing on it. --RPhilbrook (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Alestorm. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Peter Alcorn

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

Not notable drummer from obscure band. No one else in his bands have their own article, therefore clearly an advert, akin to the notion of Ringo Starr being more famous than Lennon & McCartney. Delete. Bluidsports (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Alestorm per WP:MUSICBIO (assuming the band is notable); no individual notability apparent to warrant a separate article at this time. Gong show 00:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not at all notable. Peter Somerville (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete. I strongly question the band's notability. As for this unknown drummer, delete 'with impunity.' PC7705 (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Reliable Indonesian sources have been found. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Coboy Junior: The Movie

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable film. The band itself seems to be non-notable as well. Anyway, there is no evidence of any useful sources from my Google search, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. There might be something in Indonesian sources, but I doubt it somehow. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Per 4 Google News pages of significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep and let this article be improved over time and through regular editing. Notable to Indonesia is fine for en.Knowledge, and a June release film with plenty of coverage meets WP:GNG AND WP:NF. Notability is found through sources found and offered, not usage in an article. An article being unreferenced is not an automatically valid deletion rationale when issues can be addressed,, nor is using arguments about a band... as IT is not the issue being discussed. Schmidt, 07:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it notable for Indonesia though? Some of the sources there I'm seeing look likely to be very unreliable. I can't really address anything when given a Google News search or whatever, because how can I tell which ones you're referring to? Give me a list of some of the good ones, and then I can consider withdrawing the nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, for Indonesia, making it meet WP:GNG and WP:NF and thus be notable use here. While the List of newspapers in Indonesia is far from complete, we have for instance, in just the first of SL93's offerings, Suara Merdeka has editorial staff and speaks toward the film being an inspiration to children, Metro TV News has an article about the film being a sequel, premiering in Jakarta on June 5, and not in Singapore, the Cinema 21 theater chain reports the film meeting positive response, Tribun News speaks toward cast members being prohibited from dating, Kapanlagi speaks toward the film being dedicated to children, Berita Satu speaks toward production and plot, Tribun News also speaks about the band members and production, Aaktual Post speaks toward band members attending the premiere and fan audience reception,Tribun News speaks toward plot... and there ARE three more pages of results. While assistance from Inodonesian Wikipedians would certainly be of help, improvements are possible. Let's tag the article for improvements and Indonesian assistance and let's move on. No need to delete what can be eventually fixed. Schmidt, 09:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to Alternative versions of Spider-Man. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Spider-Man (set index)

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

This is a duplication of material presented elsewhere. This is already covered in better detail in Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Other Spider-Men and Women in the Marvel Universe. It serves no real purpose to stand alone. The disambiguation page is just about as useful. Spidey104 12:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge into Alternative versions of Spider-Man per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge per nom. We don't need this redunancy. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Merge - per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess a merge would be better than a deletion. Spidey104 00:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Coboy Junior

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

without ref Spartacks Compatriot 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - the article isn't a strict BLP, so the nomination rationale is insufficient; however, I can't find anything on the web to suggest this band is notable. None of the members appear to be notable, the band hasn't released anything notable, there's no WP:RS in the article or in a web search... Thus, I believe this fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG, unless any Indonesian sources turn up to persuade me otherwise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Per a simple Google News search. SL93 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As I've said in a related AfD, just linking that isn't a help to non-Malay speakers. Which sources of those are reliable ones? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I only understand English, but I can run Google translate which is able to show if a topic is notable although the translations are bad. I might do that, but wouldn't it make sense for the band to be notable if the movie that is based on the band is notable? SL93 (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, and one I don't have a policy-based answer to either way - but there must be one somewhere. It's easy to find the volume of coverage in foreign language sources, which isn't what I was querying: my question was based on which sources are reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep: English article, 309 results from Kompas (one of, if not the, leading newspapers in Indonesia), several thousand from Tempo (a leading magazine, including a fairly in-depth article; much of the later pages look like mentions in "further reading" type deals)... )... as much as I hate to admit it (I don't like their songs one bit), they've reached national popularity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Google News only collects news website references so with 10 pages that are only about the band, it should be safe to assume that notability is shown. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - notability has now been established to my satisfaction. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I have expanded the article from sources. Notability should be clearly shown now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure), as it was mostly promotional and I could find only a handful of Google News hits. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

PhoneJS

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

Poorly sourced, promotional article about a software product. I am unable to find any independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 11:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 16:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Scott Reifert

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

~~per failing WP:GNG, I'll concede he is VP of the White Sox, one of several, but not notability beyond that or independent coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)~~ . Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)]

Keep - Charles Manson really isn't notable outside of being a murderer. It is like saying Harry Caray is not notable as all he did was announce baseball games. People do not have to hold more than one position to be notable, they need WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There are five pages of articles in the Chicago Tribune here as well as a few here on ESPN.com. Want books? He is mentioned in a few here. USA Today? Of course, here they are. Many of these articles are passing mentions, but more than enough to aggregate into significant coverage and more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The sources provided all seem to verify who he is, a spokesperson for the White Sox organization, but do not discuss him in the sort of detail that would lend to notability. I don't feel that they aggregate to meet GNG. The above editor's comparisons to Harry Caray and Charles Manson are beyond absurd. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep I generally will support any Chicago personality based on WP:GNG who has a Chicago Tribune archive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a sufficient test of notability. It means he's been mentioned a bunch, sure, but none of them are in sufficient depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete The article as it stands has no sources to establish notability and the sources listed here, including the Chicago Tribune pieces listed by TonyTheTiger are minor pieces that mostly quote him in his role as PR guy with the White Sox... his role was to issue press releases. None of these articles cover him in any significant detail and his role with the team was not significant enough to satisfy baseball notability guidelines or GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Nominator is also voting inside nominations -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm. That's what tacos get for being unrepentant, I guess. I haven't seen his/her other AfDs, but this one I still think is just. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete I don't see him how he meets WP:BIO, yes he was interviewed for White Sox related manners and some passing mentions but I don't see the multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that covers the subject in detail required here. Nominator blocked as sock has no effect on this AFD. Secret 01:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep I've been able to access full-text of various newspaper sources. Here's what has turned up:

This newsblog entry, though not the best quality source, provides some coverage regarding how Reifert and the media were not quite getting along.
Chicago Sun-Times article evidences that Reifert maintained the official blog for the White Sox, and his reputation as a social media specialist is supported by details in this book and in this one too.
Reifert is quoted several times in this article regarding how press seats at U.S. Cellular Field might be moved.

I think there's enough here for GNG per his frequent designation as a spokesperson and that there is reasonable amount of coverage of him as an early adopter an specialist in social media communications for the White Sox. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Delete These AfDs are getting dumber and dumber. First, bullpen catchers were deemed to be notable, and now some people believe being a team spokesman is notable. Where's the substantial coverage of Reifert required by Wiki notability guidelines? There doesn't appear to be any. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 16:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Theology of Relational Care

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn’t meet wiki’s notoriety requirements/not asserting importance. Secondary sources using term don’t exist. Theologianguy (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you intend to say "notability" rather than "notoriety"? Cindy(talk) 07:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Article is supported by at least one source that uses the term "theology of relational care" in the title, so I'm puzzled when TG says that the sources do not use the term. A search for additional sources returns numerous possibilities with which to support notability, while expanding the article. With all sincere respect, it appears as though the article was not afforded a thorough review prior to nomination. Cindy(talk) 07:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete The only source is that it was used as a title for a master's thesis at Harvard. Essentially all the links on the search cited are false hits--either just a search of a newspaper using the term, which yields nothing, or articles where the words are used in the same article but not as a phrase . It does look like Relational care might be a viable topic, but I think it would probably include material other than what is in the present article. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep. There are many sources Jewish and Christian sources discussing "relational care" in the context of theology (e.g. here), even if the exact phrase "theology of relational care" is not used. -- 202.124.72.14 (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Arguments such as "its notable" are not considered; consensus appears to be in support of a delete without prejudice to recreation. L Faraone 16:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Necronomicon Providence

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

This conference does not appear to be independently notable. This event does not appear to have made even the local news; and appears to be mentioned online only in blogs and ticket sales sites. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Hi. The convention is being "rebooted" after 12 years with quite a large effort from the mentioned council. Due to the fact that the con is roughly two months away, the newspaper / magazine world has not picked is up yet - events like these are mostly promoted in print only in the month before the event (July) or of the event (August).

Past conventions had roughly a thousand attendees, the numbers are expected to be much higher. The Eventpage on Facebook lists roughly half of the people that are attenting - at least 300 more people from Facebook alone will attend but haven't switched themselves from "invited" to "attending". The Event Page has more than 5000 likes, hence the event *is* more than just a gathering of a dozen like-minded people.

I have requested the rough amount of guests from the council and will provide them as soon as I have them. Please bear in mind, that this convention does not cover the vast array of topics of all the comic cons that got an entry, but they are certainly attracting more guests than gaming cons that still have an entry ].

Promotion already does happen via the hotels, as you can see here: Omni Hotels

Please also note that most of the linked guests like S.T. Joshi, Robert M. Price, Joseph S. Pulver, Caitlin R. Kiernan, Laird Barron, etc., are notable writers and scholars.

Here are some of the first announcements that can be found online (sadly links to Examiner and related newspapers will not be accpted, hence there's at least half a dozen links missing):

General Announcements:

The problem is that none of the sources are really usable as RS. The bust announcement is more about the bust and is pretty much entirely a press release. Regardless of where they're posted, PR will always be seen as a primary source that cannot show notability. Notifications of the event through things such as EventBrite and other sites can't show notability either. They just show that the convention exists. Also, promotion done by the hotel hosting the event is also seen as a primary source that cannot show notability. It's in their best interest to promote the convention, after all. Now as far as the other sources go, Brutal As Hell is about the bust and not really the convention, although it is an actual article and not a PR. The Providence Online and Innsmouth FP are sort of borderline usable, though. The big issue is verifying the reliability of the source, although some will also state that these are local sources. Local sources are always sort of depreciated when it comes to establishing notability since it's usually in a town's best interest to cover something local and local papers will often cover local interest stories. If we have coverage that isn't local, that will help establish notability a little better. One thing I also want to state is that even if the con hosts notable persons, that notability is not transferred to the con. Also, attendance means nothing. A well attended convention only means it's more likely that something will get coverage in RS that aren't local. On a side note, if this is kept then it will need a pretty heavy cleaning. The current version of the article is insanely clunky and reads part PR and part website for the con. I recommend going to a format akin to Anime Expo. Sometimes in trying to list *every* guest and every panel or feature, you make the article less helpful and informative rather than more so, so be careful of this. It's usually better to just list the guests of honor and leave off the others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've gone through and did a thorough cleaning of the article as a whole, so the current version is different from the original version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. This just isn't a notable convention and trust me, I looked for sources for both its current name and its shorter name as just "Necronomicon". The problem here is that when it is mentioned, it's as a brief aside that so and so is going to attend, a listing of various conventions, or just a typical notification of an event. This hasn't really been running that long, all things considering, and it's honestly not that uncommon for conventions to run for years without any actual mainstream coverage. I've seen a yearly gaming convention that's run fairly regularly since about the early 1980s get deleted for a lack of notability, so longevity isn't always a guarantee of notability. Nor is a guest list a guarantee of coverage. Most of what could be used as a RS by any stretch isn't really usable either. I found mention of the Cthulu PB in a book, but it's not really something that would be used as a reliable source. I have no problem with this being userfied in case more coverage does become available, but a warning: it can take years for conventions to have notability. Some never achieve it, despite running for years and having thousands of visitors. We can't guarantee that it'll gain this coverage either. I wish I could say otherwise, as I'd attend the hell out of this if it was local to me, but this just isn't notable enough to pass our very strict notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Cleaned version - The "cleaned up" version mixes the topics of the old and the new convention in a way and manner that pretty much makes it impossible to see the rebooted version as something different, but I can live with that for now. I still request to keep the entry up and kindly keep it in the way it was supposed to be before the changes. I will add sources, reviews and articles as soon as they are available in the next few weeks.LadyLovecraft (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The only problem is that you're assuming that this AfD will last that long. AfDs typically last for only one week, but can last for a few weeks if they're held over due to a lack of consensus. The other thing is that an AfD can be snow closed. My point in mentioning this is that it's really important to try to establish notability in the here and now and not rely on sources that may or may not appear in the future. The thing about future sources is that not only are they not guaranteed to actually appear (papers and such will promise reviews but then not deliver), but you also can't guarantee that they'll be in sources that Knowledge will consider to be reliable. I don't want to sound like a party pooper, but I'm trying to stress that you can't rely on the potential for future coverage. There have been a lot of things that I would have thought would have gotten buckets of coverage, yet didn't despite initial interest from reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:ORGDEPTH. If there is a "rebooted" version that gets significant coverage, come back and try again. But you can't use Knowledge to promote that version. Stalwart111 12:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Innsmouth Press is a very notable publication within the field of weird horror. If they're commenting on the conference it's worth keeping. simonm223 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.135.123.195 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Innsmouth Free Press may well be a reliable source but what we need is significant coverage in mutliple reliable sources. That's not really significant coverage and it's certainly not "multiple". Stalwart111 00:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing to be cautious of is that popular or notable within a fandom doesn't always equal out to reliable per Knowledge's guidelines. This site is very, VERY strict about what it considers to be a reliable source- almost sometimes to the point where it will occasionally seem counter-productive at times. The reason is because sourcing can sometimes become a slippery slope when you judge sources by popularity and fanbase. Not all sites with a large fanbase are reliable, after all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Glover Road

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

I think this should be deleted, wikipedia is not a map and it does not show any inherent notability at all. It might be redirected to Fort Langley but I don't think that it adds anything to that article and I'm sure there are loads of glover roads in the world so pretty counterproductive in my view. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason I wrote this article was to help fill in the "Roads of British Columbia" "Other Provincially Maintained Roads" Link Bar. If you don't like the fact the article has been written maybe you should discuss why there was a link bar created for it and other Provincially maintained roads instead of just a list in some article. It looks stupid to have a listing of dead links and I am trying to help with this by writing articles to fill these in. I would recommend an article be written for Westside Road next. Again I think you may need to debate why there are links to these roads if any thing at all. If it is decided to delete this article, then "Strathcona Parkway" should also be deleted. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 05:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As well, I have reviewed the other articles on roads in the BC area: it should be noted that we here in BC are very liberal in writing about our roads - there are numerous entries for major streets in the region that are shorter or less prominent than Glover Road. Glover Road is very important for Langley and has historical significance with its former life as a trail. If this article is deleted it would bring other articles into question regarding more minor routes.HyperbolicSheet (talk) 06:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

- We'll see how comes out but this road doesn't have the same notability like Route 66 but please note that just because another area may be covered and has an article does not give this article a get out of deletion for free card. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original presumption of notability here (inclusion in the existing template, etc.) seems to derive from the fact that it is maintained by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation, as part of it is contiguous with British Columbia Highway 10 and the part that isn't may still be provincially maintained as an unsigned extension. (I can't figure that out definitively, though; it isn't listed in the section for unnumbered routes at List of British Columbia provincial highways, although it once was and most of the roads it's listed next to in the template still are.) In reality, that isn't a claim of notability that should get a road into Knowledge in the absence of reliable sources attesting to the road's status and significance — most minor unnumbered routes have been deleted if valid sources couldn't be provided, but there are still a lot of lurking redlinks because other highway articles haven't gotten cleaned up to reflect the consensus against the automatic notability of such minor routes. And if the only sources you can come up with for the notability of such a route are maps, then that's not good enough — because every road is going to show up on a map, but that doesn't mean every road merits an article in an encyclopedia. Redirect to British Columbia Highway 10; the part that isn't part of Highway 10 has no demonstrated notability, and the part that is part of Highway 10 doesn't require two separate articles about the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand what your trying to say and it would fit if I woke up one day and decided to write and article about Glover Road. However, I decided to write the article to fill in the holes so to speak on the major provincially maintained roads list - which by the way does include some regionally significant roads. In the interest of a balanced approach, there are roads in Vancouver that have their own articles and are shorter and in some cases newer. Also, I am of the view that many roads should be included because you cant get info some info about them from a map and some people absorb information better from a paragraph than a graphic. For instance Glover's former name is not on any common map, and when I find out who it was named after that may be of interest as well. Some information that cannot be included on road maps can only be posted on wikipedia - for instance plans for development, etc. People need a place to retain information in context (history, current events, relationships). My point is that what seemed superfluous yesterday may be progressive educationally tomorrow. I'd recommend keeping this article and encouraging its development along with other major roads. You really never know what others find useful and informative. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And my point is that while a map obviously verifies the fact that a road exists, it does not provide evidence that the road is sufficiently notable to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. A road is not automatically notable just because it exists, nor is it automatically notable just because it's older or longer than another road; rather, a road only becomes notable enough for an encyclopedia if you can properly document, via the use of reliable sources, that the road has significant cultural or historical or social context. Broadway, for example, is not notable because it's there; it's notable because it's the centre of one of the world's largest and most influential theatre districts. Yonge Street is not notable just because it exists; it's notable because rightly or wrongly it was once listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's longest city street. Rodeo Drive is not notable just because it exists; it's notable because it's one of the world's most famous and most exclusive shopping districts. Lombard Street is not notable just because it's there; it's notable because its zigzagging switchbacks constitute one of the most iconic visual images of San Francisco.

If all you can do is describe a road's physical characteristics, then that's not a road that's notable enough for an article. If all you can cite for sourcing is maps, then that's not a road that's notable enough for an article. Most roads in most cities, in fact, don't qualify for encyclopedia articles at all — for a road to qualify, you need to be able to demonstrate far more than the fact that the road exists. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Is cited as a historic crossroads for settlement of City of Langley. Canuckle (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Thank-you. I think Bearcat is trying to be too idealistic with what he thinks wikipedia should be vs. what it is. As I have said before this is not an immaterial street and it is joined by many other roadways in the Vancouver region which have articles. We are also here to continue to aggregate information and allow others to contribute and it may end up being even more interesting of a street than we currently know about. HyperbolicSheet (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not being "too idealistic" — the very definition of notability is the existence and citation of reliable sources about the topic. That's not what Knowledge "should be" in an ideal world; it's what Knowledge "is".

A street isn't notable just because you say so; it's notable only if there are real, substantial sources (books, media coverage, etc.) that can be cited to demonstrate its notability. It's not notable just because you make unsourced or primary-sourced (i.e. to the city's own website) assertions that it has local significance; it's notable only if you can demonstrate a real, substantial, independently sourced reason why readers halfway across the country or the world might need or want to be interested in it. And yes, the reality of that is that streets in major, internationally famous metropolitan cities like Vancouver or Toronto or New York City have a much better chance of actually being notable enough for Knowledge articles than streets in smaller cities like Langley do — because big city streets are much more likely to have good sources that can be cited, and are much more likely to have established some actual fame beyond the city's own borders.

City streets are not a class of topic about which an encyclopedia should have articles about "all" or even "most" of them — they're a class of topic for which the bar that they have to clear to be considered notable is extremely high, and for which an encyclopedia should only have articles about an extremely small minority of all the possible entries. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Glover Road connected the birthplace of British Columbia in Fort Langley at one end to the origins of the (separate) City of Langley at the other end. It has been proposed that the article be redirected to Fort Langley and to Highway 10. Given that each only covers a portion, it would be inappropriate to redirect to one of them. While international fame may be helpful demonstration of notability, we should be careful about eliminating historic articles that may have legitimate notability within a sub-region. Canuckle (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil 11:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep, slight leaning towards a Merge to British Columbia Highway 10. This road is certainly notable as one of the historic trails in the area; however, it may make more sense to bulk up the Highway 10 article, whose notability is unquestionable. I think comparing this road to Route 66 is like comparing Nutella and crap. Knowledge isn't a map, but it is a gazetteer, which describes important roads. - Floydian _¢ 15:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 19. Snotbot t • c » 15:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep The nomination seems quite incoherent while the topic seems to have an interesting history - see Graves have stories to tell. Warden (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rick Alfandre

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

Subject appears to lack notability as per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources do not establish notability. Article may be promotional. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --ELEKHH 01:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Vikas Sethi

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

Non-notable actor, Article without references. promotional page with poor english Jussychoulex (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds here, although obviously at minimum better sourcing is to be desired. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OpEdNews

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

Nonnotable opinion site. No stories or articles about the site to be found, simply an aggregator of blogs, sometimes by noteworthy people. Fails WP:WEB. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I agree that this fails WP:WEB, and seems to be mostly an aggregator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 10:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is a notable aggregator of mostly pro-Palestine, pro-Iran, pro-Jihad apologists, and a quite a large one of interest to many people. Most of the most important writers and pundits in this field of politic are contributors, and this is an invaluable reference to those who wish to track jihad disinformation sources, and sources that can be traced to news stories sourced from Iranian press sources such as PressTV and Fars Redhanker (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- If it's notable, where's the evidence? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- If it's been noted by the ADL as an outlet for anti-semitic conspiracy theories, then that's plenty notable. Most of these requests to delete jihad apologist conspiracy theorists appear to be attempts to keep them out of the sunlight and in the shadows Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years ... www.adl.org/main.../911_conspiracy_theories_report.htm?Multi_page...‎

Aug 30, 2011 – Anti-Defamation League, ABOUT ADL, FIND YOUR LOCAL ADL .... for the Op-Ed News site in which he promotes anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy ...

- anti-semitism.net also cites oped news as anti-semitic site www.anti-semitism.net/adl/opednews-article-anti-defamation-league-pled...‎

OpEdNews – Article: Anti-Defamation League Pledge For Unity On Israel. ... April 19th, 2013; The Leo Frank Case and Why the ADL was formed, Dr. Edward R ...

- beforeitsnews another conspiracy cite that notes opednews.
- There are thousands of web search hits on sites that "note" opednews. They are an outlet for hundreds of notable authors. Their articles are mirrored on dozens if not hundreds of like-minded websites. They are either a major information or disinformation outlet depending on which side you think they are working for. If it is even a remote possibility that they could be a disinformation outlet for terrorist or nation-state intelligence agencies against the US and western allies including Israel, then they definitely should be noted, if not for being a major proponent of "alternative" or "progressive" media defending the rights of Palestineans and warfare against Arab and Muslim peoples. They are not a "mainstream" outlet. Redhanker (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- anti-Israel American conspiracy theorist notable James Fetzer who contributes to Iran's media notes his research being published on Oped news in a notable Veterans Today piece, which also contributes to Iran's PressTV. Anybody who browses OpEdNews list of contributors can quickly discern a bias against Israel and for the "axis of resistance" which includes Palestinean nationalists, North Korea, Syria, Sudan and Iran. Notable does not neccesarily mean reliable, in fact unreliability of conspiracy theorists makes them notable. Redhanker (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's just an obscure web loony-bin for self-publishing conspiracy wacks. No significance established. Frizzmaz (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep - Obviously needs more info and refs, but it is important to make clear what it is, what it's reliability is, etc. since it can be confusing to people. Just a way of fulfilling Knowledge's encyclopedic function. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 03:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping articles on clearly non-notable subjects isn't "encyclopedic function," it's "hoarding behavior," i.e. encyclopedic dysfunction. Frizzmaz (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Slon02 (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Walker cameras

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

Subject appears to lack notability as per WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No WP:RS sources. The three cited are all from the company website. Am I missing something here? Let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Added four more sources. I suggest no deletion as they are the only supplier of pin hole cameras to Ilford Photo. A google search would support the notablity claim. --enock (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete I'm seeing only three independent sources out of the seven footnotes in the article now. One is a four minute review, one is a mere 66 words, and the third and most substantive, is only 403 words. None of these are about the Walker Cameras company, they're product reviews, and extremely trivial ones at that. Knowledge:Notability (organizations and companies) requires sustained, in-depth coverage, and it should actually be about this company. If you wanted to make an article about one of the company's products instead of the company, you would still come up short on sufficient sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Snarfer

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

Subject does not meet established guidelines for general notability. The article in question relies heavily on primary sources for content, with scant evidence of non-trivial coverage from third party publications. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete seems like it was only around for a year or so. Never got notability. W Nowicki (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sniper Elite 3

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

Subject is an anticipated video game reportedly under development with an projected release date of sometimes in 2014. I suspect that if/when the game is released it will probably meet WP:N. But as the game is still reportedly in development and no firm date for release has been announced, and 2014 covers a rather large time frame I believe this falls under WP:TOOSOON. If you think think I am missing something, let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with WP:TOOSOON; information about this game is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Maybe remake in the future if it proves to be WP:N, but not now. Ansh666 05:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I'm sure it will be notable but we probably shouldn't have an article until there are some solid sources or at least a verifiable release date and details. Stalwart111 06:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Likely to be notable in the future, but not just yet. I'd also suggest a userfication so the creator can continue editing the article with new information as it surfaces, and move it back to mainspace once the subject establishes notability. Green CKE 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete This article is created prematurely.The release date of the game hasn't even been confirmed,and it is not notable now.L smll 09:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep Is the Version 3, and is not important?, Wait for 2014 --Luis46coco (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Night By Night

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND as there has not been significant independent WP:RS coverage, there is no evidence of being on a national music chart, no evidence of independent reliable source coverage of any tours, no evidence of releasing two or more albums on major labels or major indie labels, does not contain two or more notable musicians, and no evidence of any major music award nominations. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and perhaps one day in the future they will be notable by Knowledge standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, last message re Night By Night. I have had an appalling experience trying to contribute to Knowledge with imo constant contradictory and/or inconsistent (with other pages) tagging imo but no actual help whatsoever (imo). I have no interest in contributing to Wiki now. Please take the page down or keep it, and yes perhaps one day, one day they will be notable enough (that was a very patronizing sentence imo). Cheers and all the best, I have made this non-emotive and constructive feedback but this has not been a good experience. For the record, the page was accepted by a Wiki reviewer and then immediately tagged (is that the right term?) and a few weeks later has been put forward for deletion - this does not demonstrate consistency. (imo). Once again, thanksWikirob78 (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikirob78, sorry that you have had an unpleasant experience attempting to contribute to Knowledge. Regarding this particular subject, the band was founded by a member of The Sisters of Mercy, which is a pretty big deal, so just based on that lineage I expected to find some sources. Some are cited in the article, such as the coverage in Bass Guitar Magazine. I did my own searching and found:

"An awesome night provided by Night by Night", Herald Express 08 Nov 2012: 67
"Classic rock with a modern edge", South Wales Evening Post 10 July 2009: 35
Clarke, Kate. "Modern rockers hint at the past", South Wales Evening Post 09 July 2009: 5
"Album reviews: Night by Night: Can't Walk Away", Music News 28 Feb 2010
"Umeå får celebert goth-besök", Örnsköldsviks Allehanda (Swedish newspaper) 15 May 2009
"A zene javít az életminőségen", Magyar Hírlap (Hungarian) 1 March 2011
and some blogs and webzines (which themselves are not as helpful towards WP:N notability), such as this this this this this and many similar.

All in all, it's not the strongest case for WP:GNG notability, but probably enough to squeak by for a keep. Paul Erik 02:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to The Big Roar. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cradle (The Joy Formidable song)

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

Subject appears to lack notability as per WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Both sources are primary and I failed to find any WP:RS sources in G News or general web search. Am I missing something? Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree Violetcries —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 13 June 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to The Big Roar - It's a single released on vinyl in 2008. It's not going to have any notable chart positions as a result, and a Google search turns up music videos, song lyrics, and guitar tabs, with nothing of note appearing. This is a reasonably plausible redirect though, hence the vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Secret 18:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Alex Christie (activist)

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

Nothing really notable about this person. Article was created by User:Paulchristie, an obvious conflict of interest. Unless something comes up in this discussion, recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral – He was notable enough for the Toronto Star to write a 320-word article about him (and I have full-text access to that if anyone has any questions), and for the Alex Christie Bandshell in Kew Gardens to be named for him. That said, most of the other sources I'm finding constitute only brief mentions, hence my uncertainty here. Paul Erik 03:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Suttungr (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep as per Paul Erik, since I've struggled to find any further sources beyond what they've listed here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete so what does the article claim? Christie ran a family restaurant and started or operated a number of businesses in the Beaches area of Toronto. He was also involved in community volunteer activities. He was the father of a city councillor and had a park gazebo named after him. All this is interesting but not necessarily notable. It's tough finding sources about him since this is a fairly common name. At this point it makes an interesting story but based on a single obituary I have to say that he doesn't warrant his own Knowledge entry. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Chartered Institute of Administration

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. Searching for independent third party reliable sources all that I turn up in searches that actually hit on the name are a series of passing mentions as found in some of the actual hits in this example search: . The mentions tend to be when describing an individual's career history and mention the Chartered Institute of Administration, but do not focus on the organization itself at all, and notability is not inherited. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep. I also do not find any in-depth coverage, but there are a fair number of references to alumni as noted by the nominator. Cumulatively they seem enough to justify keeping a stub on the subject. ThisDay mentioned it here Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

TR64

(Find video game sources: "TR64" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No assertion of notability, no sources, and no significant content. Does not appear likely to progress past stub status. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete I agree with the nom that it is not notable,as the article said,lags behind other emulators.And its development is halted,so it is unlikely to become notable later.L smll 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - per nom, and comment by Lsmll. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG now, and isn't likely to get there if its lacking in quality and no longer being worked on... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: I would have closed this per nom's request as speedy keep #1 ~~since nom proposes a non-deletion action (merge)~~ (see request), but it's no longer eligible due to the current case for deletion. (Also see related merge discussion.) czar · · 20:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He didn't actually request a merge in this one. It was done separately from that other group... Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's probably just because I wasn't paying that much attention when I nom'd it. But as I mentioned elsewhere, I think the distinction between delete and merge should hinge on whether this article is noteworthy enough to warrant a spot in the List Of article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What is noteworthy enough to warrant a spot on a list article, though? The current list includes several emulators that have no stand-alone article (FakeNE, FCE Ultra GX, iNES, neumlator, Nesoid, NESten, Nestopia UE, VirtuaNES, RockNes, and IMBNes), and several of those don't even have a source for verification (i.e. FCE Ultra GX, Nesoid, Nestopia UE, VirtuaNES, RockNes, and IMBNes). By those standards nothing should be deleted and everything should be merged. Or is the idea that the "List of" article should be stripped down to only a list of emulators notable enough to have stand-alone articles? I'm all for cutting out self-promotional nonsense on unremarkable small-scale emulators, but I think there is probably room to include more on the list than just those with stand-alone articles. I'd personally draw the line at RS verifiability. If a single significantly-covering RS or a handful of RSes providing minimal coverage can be located then I'd say it should be on the list. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was merge to Gaggle (band). (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Power of Money

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

Article seems to lack notability and reliable WP:RS sources as with the other single article. As always if I missed something let me know. I'm not out to kill articles (usually). Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge to Gaggle (band). Covered in reliable sources, but can be covered adequately in the article on the group. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge - to Gaggle (band) per Michig. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

OpenWire Studio

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

Only sources I can find are self published (shareware sites, blogs etc.) article seems to be posted for advertising and promotion. Tyros1972 Talk 07:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete As I said ealier in the Prod notice that was removed by the article creator "No evidence that this beta software meets the notability criteria." If anything, the Softpedia download link that has been added since just confirms this position: a Beta with 32 downloads to date. AllyD (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Brødrene Löwenstierne

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

I am unable to find any reliable sources on this band. All that comes up is fan based sites (facebook, itunes, youtube, sites that just link to YouTube etc.). Fails music notability. Tyros1972 Talk 07:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:Music, Non notable Norwegian band, no reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete.--Slon02 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

International Franchise Association

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

This article does not provide any third-party references that indicate the notability of the subject of the article and therefore fails WP:CORP. It has been written, in part, by users affiliated with the company (such as User:Praveshiet). --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The article may be lacking content, but this is a legitimate non-profit organization with numerous affiliations to other companies. They also promote education and scholarship pertaining to franchises. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- None of the points you have made address the concern that the organisation appears to fail WP:CORP. Unless you can do that, your comments here won't count for anything. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 19:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete as lacking evidence of independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Keep notable non-profit organization, may be lacking sources, but is prominent in the franchising world and parents advocate programs such as VetFran VetFran Strategic Initiative Sherwood10 (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Sherwood10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:ORG. I've only found PR type coverage rather than indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. L Faraone 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nik Muhammad Moaelm

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

Can't find any sources that would indicate why this perso was notable. Lugnuts 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Appears to have been just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL guerilla boss. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable....William 20:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. {{WP:SOFTDELETE]] Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Moksh Juneja

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

This person does not meet our notability criteria: while it's true that some sources have been cited in the article, they merely mention the subject incidentally. Salvio 12:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 15:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

R K Global

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

Cannot find any significant coverage in independent media. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete**Jussychoulex (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Subject group of companies owns the World's costliest cricket bat. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. ItsZippy 17:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC

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

Yet another non-notable law firm; yes, it and its lawyers have won non-notable industry awards, but so have dozens of other lawyers and firms. Fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete - does not appear to meet standards of WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Not demonstrably notable; not even a close call based on what's in the article.

--Elvey (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep per my standards for lawyers. Several of the partners and counsel are notable. For example, Catherine Richardson was the ~~first female~~ president of the New York State Bar Association. Terry O'Neil is a top labor lawyer. John A. Miller is an expert in school governance. Arthur Siegel is a well-known ambulance chaser, and very good at it. James E. Wilber was a partner, but now semi-retired in Florida, was a well-respected appellate attorney who argued many important cases. I could go on and on. This is one of the largest law firms in Upstate New York. Of course it's notable. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Richardson also served in many other capacities and won many awards. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 02:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Bond, Schoeneck was, as of 2012, the 202nd largest on the List of largest U.S. law firms by number of lawyers, source here. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

According to my reckoning, only Dewey & LeBoeuf and Boies, Schiller & Flexner, both of which have offices in Albany, New York along with Bond, Schoeneck & King, are bigger. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So where do we draw the line - fifth biggest, tenth?--ukexpat (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fifth sounds good. This firm is one of the top three or four, both in terms of size and reputation, in Upstate NY, an area of at least 3 million people. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. Full disclosure, I was considering closing this discussion, and would have done so as delete. However, my practice is to first read the discussion, then the article, then research if I need to. This technically doesn't meet WP:Corp, but to me law firms and other professional associations are different - they generally don't engage in activity as a discrete organization, but rather they act through their members. For this reason,I think Bearian's alternate standards are reasonable in this case. I further note there's a degree of notability reflected from these articles from the world of American football here and here - two different partners from the firm are mentioned in different articles about sport teams that have gotten in trouble, both noting the firm has special expertise in this area. In all, it feels like this is more than a run of mill firm. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Text Offenders

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

Non-notable hip hop group Beerest355 Talk 00:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete Not notable as off yet. gidonb (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete no independent sources. --SubSeven (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Jeopardy! broadcast history. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Jep!

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

Non-notable game show spin-off; fails Knowledge's general notability guideline. There is no possibility of the information contained in this article being verified against any reliable source. At its core, this article comprises fancruft, original research, useless trivia, and unnecessary pointless detail. The parent program is far more notable than this largely unknown kid's spin-off. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions, Thursday, June 27, 2013, 00:10 U.T.C.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect - to Jeopardy! and include the information about how the Jep! Squad was a forerunner to the Clue Crew if you can find a reference. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would rather have it redirected to Jeopardy! broadcast history. Accounts pertaining to Jep! and its fellow spin-off, Rock & Roll Jeopardy!, are best left to that child article than to the main Jeopardy! article, which, being 85 kilobytes long, does not need to be overfilled - the main article, in its current state, does need a few child articles to call its own, with enough sources to support their existence, provided that Knowledge:Summary style is complied with. I've already expanded the broadcast history article's entry on Jep! to include further information about the spin-off, in the case of this discussion being closed with a consensus to redirect or delete. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions, Tuesday, July 2, 2013, 03:08 U.T.C.
Redirect to Jeopardy! broadcast history, where the show is already discussed, per Seth Allen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)