Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 4

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L.W. Hodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a non-notable filmmaker. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. - MrX 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple searches including Google News provided nothing substantial aside from another NYTimes link, which is a reliable source but both links mention him in passing. All around, it seems he is indeed best known for the "Unforgivable" videos in addition to his other YouTube stuff. I would suggest a redirect to Gunnar Stansson but I don't really think there's much for him there either. I should also mention that searches under his alias Aerobiz found nothing as well as Main Attrakionz. Obviously, he's simply known as a YouTube video maker. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete not notable, no significant web coverage doesn't pass GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Alex ^{discussion ★} 02:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Another non-notable article connected to this is Gunnar Stansson.--Otterathome (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sourcing, no desire to merge. JodyB _talk 05:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Japanese–English Translation Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no merge discussion for over a year. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Japan Association of Translators. Although the target article is also unsourced, Google Books finds several mentions. My !vote presumes that the organization will satisfy GNG. If the decision is to merge, I would lose the list of meetings, but keep information in the lead section. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this conference meets the basic notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:GNG. Gbooks contains mainly proceedings from this conference. This is not third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Cnilep. Keep the lead section in a better place. The list, meh. Jusdafax 10:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_Power_Rangers_characters#G. JodyB _talk 05:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_Power_Rangers_characters#G. Not notable. Does not have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Lots of fanart on Deviant Art, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge Prefer 'Keep' since merging it into List_of_Power_Rangers_characters would create an over sized article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Spawn villains. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Spawn (comics) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Spawn villains. Not notable. Does not receive significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Some of the plot elements could be merged into Spawn (comics), too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete entirely in-universe perspective plot summary, no attempt at sourcing. Searches lead to the William Blake character/concept or to a similarly-named band. No third-party coverage. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, ping http://spawn.wikia.com/wiki/Spawn_Wiki to see if they want to transwiki content. There are so many other comic fancruft articles we need to purge... sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JodyB _talk 05:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:GNG not satisfied. Not a notable actor. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Next_of_Kin_(TV_series)#Characters - Minor actor with his Next of Kin being his best known work in addition to his recent work as a "location manager" which would hardly receive much significant attention. Everything is supported by IMDb with no other links or information to add to the article. I should mention that detailed searches including Google News provided nothing. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a redirect of an actor to his character is not appropriate, unless the article is substantially expanded to tell us what he was doing before and after. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life.. Based upon the reading of policies I think the redirect is the proper course. The article can be recreated should his notability increase in the future. JodyB _talk 05:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yet another case where someone jumped the gun by creating an article about an unelected candidate in a local election. It dances right on the edge of being a campaign brochure, including analysis of his positions and a subjective quote about his opinion of Justin Trudeau, and completely fails to provide any real demonstration that he actually gets past another notability guideline to counterbalance his failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Walter_Dinsdale#Personal_Life. If he were a.n.other candidate in a local election, I'd probably support deletion. However, the election which Rolf Dinsdale stood in was a federal one, not a local one and he nearly won, coming within 400 votes of victory in a seat previously held by his father. So, while that doesn't merit a standalone article, it does mean that he's a plausible search term. WP:POLITICIAN says: "In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." I believe in this case, brief mentions in context in the father's article would be more appropriate than deletion or a simple redirect to the election article, redirects being cheap. Valenciano (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Not independently notable. It might be ok to merge a bit of this article, but most of it is trivia (e.g. Shit From Hell isn't a notable band, and we don't need the lengthy quotes). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello. It is my opinion that the page should be kept, and edited if need be. Dinsdale was a candidate for a major Canadian political party, in a federal by-election, and almost won. As to the point that I jumped the gun in creating the page, it should be pointed out that Dinsdale was leading in many pre-election polls, in a Conservative party stronghold. As for the section discussing his positions, I always find it helpful to have some indication of a political candidate's views on several matters. The quote, however, does seem unhelpful in hindsight, so I apologise for that. Also, I'm not entirely sure it's that appropriate to state "following which, as is so often the case, he didn't win the election in the end, and thus continues to fail." Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Leading in the polls during an election campaign" does not in and of itself make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and what happened to Dinsdale is exactly the reason why that's the case: he led all the polls, but still lost — because the voters who actually showed up to actually mark actual ballots turned out not to be a representative sample of what the poll respondents were saying. (There is a reason politicians say "the only poll that matters is the one on election day".) Either way, the rule about politicians on Wikipedia is that if you can't make a credible case that a person was already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article before they became a candidate in an election, then the mere fact of running in an election doesn't make them any more notable than they were before — with extremely rare exceptions they have to win the election, not just run in it, to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're misquoting me. I didn't say that "he continues to fail", period, end of sentence; I said that "he continues to fail WP:POLITICIAN". Sure, it would have been inappropriate commentary if I'd ended the sentence where you quoted me as ending it — but I didn't. It wasn't a comment on his basic worth as a human being; it was a comment on his lack of meeting a specific Wikipedia inclusion rule. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry. I don't see how I misread that; I think I was just pretty frustrated that this article, which I think should be kept, was probably going to be deleted as well as the wording of the statement, in my opinion, made me sound like a Liberal Party of Canada tool. On the issue of his not winning, I agree that you have a very valid point, however, he does seem to have done a lot of work with Facebook in Canada, which might be grounds for keeping the article. However, if the article is deleted, I do not believe it should be changed to a redirect, just outright deleted. Once again, sorry about the misquote. Thanks.NHCLS (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure - (1) He clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:OUTCOMES for that part. (2) He might just pass WP:MUSICBIO for having played in a notable punk rock band (I'm typing at work, so don't ask me the name of the band.) Bearian (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of WP:OUTCOMES, that does say: "Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question" (emphasis mine.) If this person was a nobody whose only claims to notability were standing and losing, who bombed badly in a general election, deletion would be clear. However here we have someone who stood in a by-election (special election) and very nearly won, someone who is the son of the former longstanding representative for that district, someone who plays in a punk band of borderline notability and who got a bit of press coverage, albeit related to the election. I've had a look and I quite agree with the nominator that that coverage is insufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN, but this is one of the clearest cases for a redirect that I've seen, given the other circumstances, as content which people who come here may well search and could be preserved as a brief, sourced line or two in either the by-election article or the father's article. (Suggest the latter.) Valenciano (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am not sure if this article meets notability. It seems that there are no sources (besides a dead link) for this youth league, though there are a few NFL players that started out from this league. Natg 19 (talk) 09:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've never found a youth leauge to be notable and I see no reason that this one should be. I cannot find any notability measure that would make it so. There is some coverage found online, but it is all local coverage. It doesn't matter if any notable players started in the league because all notable players started someplace. If there was widespread coverage about this particular league, it would be different. I just don't see it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Lexx episodes. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Worship His Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plot summary only of one episode of a series. No sign of notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Lexx episodes. While the first episode of a multi-season series is the sort of thing that might realistically be able to support an article, this is nothing but a badly overlong plot summary. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment see also: Giga Shadow (LEXX episode), Eating Pattern (LEXX episode) and Super Nova (LEXX episode). Ruby Murray 11:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Lexx episodes. I thought there would be plenty of reviews online, but there isn't much that looks useable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per the other commenters. Go ahead and redirect the other articles as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of schools in Rotherham#Independent schools. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable primary school as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Drm310 (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Rotherham#Independent schools - fails WP:ORG. As is usual practice for primary schools redirect seems a constructive way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk)
• Redirect-yeah, I'll go with that. It's just a nonsense article. Totally fails WP:ORG. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (rather than plain redirect). This is (in the terms of other countries) a private school; hence rather different from the typical state school. Alternatively the merge target might be a list of prep schools in Yorkshire. English Public schools are generally for 13-18; and prep schools 8-13, preparing pupils for entrance to public schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should be happy to support a merge, but where? I have had a good look for a better target but without success. I am not aware of a List of preparatory schools in Yorkshire or similar, for example. Indeed, the problem with such a list is that it is likely to be composed mainly of grey links as most of the schools would be nn. Mentioning the school at Rotherham would be undue weight and more content at List of schools in Rotherham would be out of keeping with the rest of the list. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that I don't agree that independent schools are any more inherently notable than state schools. Thats just snobbery. Atlas-maker (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of schools in Rotherham#Independent schools per The Whispering Wind and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Deor (talk)

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

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

The result was merge to List of military electronics of the United States. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AN/ASQ-119 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of military electronics of the United States, an appropriate location for a brief description. It could be argued that the AN/ designation is prima facie evidence of notability, but (barring sufficient sources for an expansion) an inclusive list of these types would be better than a series of stubs in this instance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of military electronics of the United States, per The Bushranger. This is verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE, merging of verifiable content is preferable to deletion. AN/ASQ-119 already has an entry in List of military electronics of the United States, so it is a natural merge target. --Mark viking (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I may be flirting with WP:AGF here but I don't see indication that nominator considered alternatives to deletion. ~KvnG 00:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of military electronics of the United States. Sounds good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of military electronics of the United States since it is really only one line of text.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An unsourced article of a fictional character. Redirect doesn't match well as a fictional character would redirect to a cast list. JodyB _talk 05:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cast of ER. The name gets lots of hits, but the articles seem to be about the actor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and possibly contact the ER Wikia to transwiki. No independent substantiative coverage beyond plot summaries. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No references, notability not established for over 5 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Google Books is giving me a lot of hits in Romanian, as I might expect. A reading of the article suggests the sort of accomplishments that ought to be covered in reliable sources; that those sources aren't included in the article (or aren't in English) does not a reason for deletion make. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:PROF criterion 3. A year before his death, he was elected an honorary member of the Romanian Academy, and I would argue that any member of that body is notable.
• Having said that, yes, the lack of references is glaring, and at some point, that should be addressed. Unfortunately, what's online, even in books, is mainly just routine mentions (Balş restored this church, Balş restored that church), so this article may actually require (!) print sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough has emerged including his election to the Romanian Academy to show that he is notable. Moreover, there is no reason to suggest that the article is incorrect although it could doubtless be considerably expanded. --AJHingston (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As mentioned, qualifies under WP:PROF#3. He is also subject of a biography in the Grove Dictionary of Art.. Actually, on further review, Delete as a verbatim copy of copyrighted text from Grove. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable broadsheet lacking non-trivial support. Ghits and GNews lack substance. reddogsix (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This publication has not received the necessary notice by independent sources. The references in the article are mostly about one of the founders of the publication; the others are passing mentions. Google and Google News Archive searches find nothing of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Brickbat Revue is an LA based broadsheet that services the local black community by providing an outlet for African-American poets to print their original works. It also provides political and cultural analysis of the events in the local black community. Although it has a limited internet presence because it is a broadsheet that is difficult to reproduce on the internet, it is a valuable resource with a dedicated local readership that deserves to be highlighted on Wikipedia. The black community has so few media outlets to cover its artistic scene and it would be a shame to remove a reference to a viable small media outlet, that is keeping independent print journalism alive in its on small way, from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamj2 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC) — Lisamj2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the world of online literary journals Brickbat Revue is a rarity. It reaches back and borrows from Wallace Berman's Semina, it is reminiscence of the Aspen Wall Posters. Original work that is a true labor of love. While Teka Lark is one of the most innovative poets in L.A. this project sadly includes none of her work. It includes the work of people of note in the L.A. literary an art scene. Original pieces by Brendan Constantine, SA Griffin and Jaha. In times like these it's so important for physical works of art that are underground be preserved, because they are important pieces of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannichi (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl (talk • contribs) — 1635schl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that the Brickbat Revue has significant value in L.A.'s literary community.

1. It has published original works by all authors listed.
2. S.A. Griffin, Wanda Coleman and Brendan Constantine's work all later went on to be published in book format by respected publisher which signifies the work is significant, not simple reprints of old work.
3. The Brickbat Revue also has original work by Danny Weizmann one of the original writers at the L.A. Weekly.
4. The Brickbat Revue is not a vanity press or print on demand, which many small presses in L.A. are, which makes the Brickbat Revue unique.
5. It's internet footprint is light owing to the owners being a bit luddite in nature and actively trying to keep print alive and shunning the internet a bit, but just because it is not online doesn't mean it's not relevant.
6. The Brickbat Revue is archived at UC Berkeley, Cal State L.A. and Barnard College.

Brickbat Revue is a substantial literary journal. It is archived in several academic institutions in the U.S. It is a physical archive of the Los Angeles literary scene from the early aughts forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.138.69 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1635schl (talk • contribs) — 69.115.138.69 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - How does this meet any of the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We don't require references that establish notability to come from online sources. If you can point to off-line sources that show that this article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notablity, that is also fine. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nominator's reasons. Sancho 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Life on Mars characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Short article for minor character in Life on Mars (UK TV series) (she is not considered noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the characters section of the main article). When the fluff is cleaned away, can easily be covered in List of Life on Mars characters, where there are listings of equivalent size. HornetMike (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Tyler a muliple AfD.Martin451 03:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the list of characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Also nominating Jo Crocker. Two people with very minor roles in the media, whose only notability is the fact they are the husband of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and the sister of Stephen Fry respectively. Can be covered in the personal life sections of their famous connections. HornetMike (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crocker, who is certainly NN. Not sure about Stearns, but he probably is too. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)<![reply]

-- from Template:Relist -->

• Delete. Stearns is not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. He was a writer's assistant and hasn't distinguished himself enough for notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of liturgical Hebrew cognates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article consists of a list of Hebrew terms, comparing their pronunciations in the various liturgical traditions.

Firstly, I do not see why this is encyclopedic material; at best, it should be transwikied.

Also, the methods of transcription are idiosyncratic, and the choice of sub-dialects is also unusual (ŋ for ayin in Ashkenazi Hebrew, for instance.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete By WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is also not a directory, and the English Wikipedia is not for an article in which the information is in another language. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because (a) The Hebrew language is very ancient dating back at least 4,000+ years in its origins and development, so that therefore (b) it is only logical, historically necessary correct, and simple etymology that there are so many variants in its pronunciation. This list is only a tiny fraction of that reality. Now wonder that (c) there are so many articles based on Hebrew words, and hence Category:Hebrew words and phrases. (d) The reason/s cited by the nominator are not valid in this case because of WP:NOTPAPER and this information is highly informative and educational. Also, please take a look at the advice in WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. (e) User Gilgamesh (talk · contribs) the creator of this list is a long time reliable editor, knowledgeable in this field, having created this article in 2004! and it would be a great pity that this is lost now. (f) For each word the list cites the common English Biblical usage is cited and then continues with the variances that exists or have existed in Hebrew. By all means improve it, and engage its creator in a WP:AGF discussion how to get that done. (g) Prayer in HEBREW (see List of Jewish prayers and blessings) and Torah study based on HEBREW are central to the practice of Judaism, and therefore the kind of words and how they are used is important. And obviously this is important to both Christianity and Islam as well since they are derived from and borrow from the original Hebrew of Judaism. Thus (h) it is no surprise that there are categories such as Category:Hebrew words and phrases in Jewish prayers and blessings. (i) In a similar and related fashion, there are many examples of lists comparing words and their different usages or origins in all sorts of situations, see for example the vastly differing and often esoteric examples in Category:Lists of English words (with sub-categories such as Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin). On and on what seems "esoteric" it goes, see List of eponymous adjectives in English; List of Latin words with English derivatives. See Category:Arabic words and phrases with List of Quranic names. (j) Bottom line, while the list may "seem" specialized and "out-of-place" -- and like many articles and lists it can and will be improved over time, especially if expert editorial input is requested at WP:TALKJUDAISM -- it nevertheless serves as a valuable and encyclopedic entry demonstrating differences of pronunciation within Hebrew and existing at the same in English in similar forms that would be entirely self-defeating for WP to lose. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  @IZAK: I assume that you didn't list points a–c and f–h for my benefit?

Let me state my points more clearly; the problems with this article are as follows:

(1) the topic is not encyclopedic, that is, not in the scope of an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTDICTIONARY;

(2a) the topic is not independently notable (even if the Hebrew language, its many dialects, Jewish liturgy and its variants all are);

(2b) the list does not serve a conceivable navigational purpose so that it should be kept regardless of notability; and

(3) even if kept or transwikied there are content issues to be dealt with, namely the choice of sub-dialects representing the major dialects (Ashkenazi Hebrew is significant; ŋ-Ashkenazi is not, except in a discussion of all varieties of Hebrew) and consistency in method of transcription.

(Gilgamesh's high quality of editing is completely irrelevant to whether the article is kept.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No contest. It was all original research almost a decade ago, when I was barely starting to learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia and its goals. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should add — there is certainly merit in this study. But my old approach was inappropriately amateurish and entirely unreferenced. The various phonetic traditions should be addressed as topics (which they are in many of the different Hebrew dialect articles), but an indexed, referenced collection of specific traditional pronunciations may have its place on Wiktionary. I've long since had a presence on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary, so I'm perfectly alright with sorting information on their appropriate wikis. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you are too critical of your own work here; very little referencing is necessary for such an article, as it all follows plainly from descriptions of the various dialects. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think of it (I'm sorry that I don't articulate my thoughts all at once), there may be a place for relatively short illustrative lexical lists on Wikipedia, to demonstrate the differences in phonetic traditions. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I think sources can be easily found and all of the information can be listed at the individual articles and Wiktionary entries for each of the names. However, there's no need to have it all in a list. – Zntrip 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while it may have passed AfD six years ago, it would fail today. Consensus has changed to eliminate charts of words in various dialects such as this. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not established. I found one single-paragraph blurb in PCWorld reviewing it, no other RS. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. PCworld paragraph mentioned by nom doesn't meet threshold of significant coverage, and a search did not turn up any additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At first I thought perhaps a merge into FBM Software would be in order, but it is not even clear the company as a whole is notable. If you look at its "in the news" page for example, the last activity was in 2005. It was supposedly based in San Francisco, but could not find any mention at all in the San Francisco Business Journal, which would normally cover any significant company. The only link given in this article went dead over two years ago, see this archive W Nowicki (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability not established. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - software article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeroads company seems defunct. The one web link went dead over two years ago. No mentions since about 2005 so not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary opposing views. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

114th Division (Imperial Japanese Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I don't buy arguments that military history does not belong in the Wikipedia. Hmmm only 373,000 results on Google. And only mentioned in 2,670 books. How disappointing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lose the strawman, Hawkeye7, you (should) be better than that. I never said that military history does not belong in Wikipedia. I said that this article gives no indication of notability. I'm seeing tons of sources that list it in large listings of units that exist, but not finding any that are discussing the unit specifically with a level of critical discussion that would meet GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. General consensus is that military formations of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this division was American or British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We definitely would, because this article contains no claim to notability (independent of that it's a large unit) and only one source, which is offline. There's a really simple solution to this, which is "don't create crap articles". All this page has is a listing of places that a unit was stationed. That, in and of itself, gives no claim to notability. You can't just assume that someone with no experience in writing military history articles is going to come along and be able to find sources. I don't have the massive library that Hawkeye7 apparently has; I have to go off of Google searches, and in this case I've got pages of sources that mention it in lists, and nothing that's describing it in specific detail, nothing that would indicate the unit's notability. When all I'm getting are things like "A later landing by the 114th Division was similarly unopposed." or "And the experienced 101st, 106th, 108th, 109th, and 114th were on call-up status." from Google, I've got nothing to go on. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

102nd Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Another well-known regiment of the Imperial Japanese Army. Arrived in January 1943 and fought in the Huon Peninsula campaign and later around Wewak. A quick check shows a plethora of mentions in Dexter, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.The nomination was withdrawn with no contrary recommendations. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

144th Infantry Regiment (Imperial Japanese Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this specific unit is notable. I don't buy the argument that military units are automatically notable; it needs to be justified in sources, and I'm not seeing that. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy cow. This is the regiment around which the South Seas Detachment was built. That makes it one of the most notable Japanese Army regiments of the Pacific War. --Yaush (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Yes, it is one of the best-known and most notable regiments in the Imperial Japanese Army. Pull any book on the war in New Guinea and you will find references to. But start with Miller, Long and McCarthy, and work through the shelf from there. This is why we have WP:MILUNIT; but if you want to not "buy the argument that military units are automatically notable" then you to demonstrate WP:COMPETENCE with the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. General consensus is that military units of this size are notable, per WP:MILUNIT. I don't think we'd even be having this discussion if this regiment was American or British. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn It is very clear that this isn't going to get deleted. It would have been nice to have had someone from MILHIST take a look at this and say "You're right, there isn't an indication of notability in this, but here are sources [1], [2], and [3] that demonstrate it. Don't search using google, search using [X].", but (Redacted) Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable high school educator. Although Hodge was the topic of a very nice New York Daily News profile on the occasion of his retirement, that appears to be the only coverage available for him. The school he headed is notable, but he as an individual does not appear to be. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless other evidence comes to light. I'd note that this page has been speedy-deleted before as mentioned on the article creator's usertalk page and the new page appears to have been posted just after the speedy deletion of the old one (and I think only a minute later). Neonchameleon (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other evidence came to light. Change to Keep Neonchameleon (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to keep -- Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) has done yeoman's work in finding other sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. The news coverage now in the article is enough for WP:GNG. (I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but WP:PROF is not really aimed at educators at the secondary school level so GNG is the more appropriate notability criterion.) —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've not yet been able to find any information on his earlier teaching, but I found and added several extended discussions of his work in newspapers, and some book sources. He is one of the principals given a chapter-length profile in a Heritage Foundation book, so I added that as Further reading. I think the article now demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and a career record of 2 wins and 3 losses.Mdtemp (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NMMA--I think nom says it all.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. 173.171.115.72 (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think it's salient to note that her stats are low because of her premature death. I don't know if that matters all that much, but it ought to count for something in one direction or another. Also, I think it's salient that at the time of her death, she was engaged to Denis Kang (who is notable, and whose weak record since 2006 is generally attributed to her death), and perhaps some of her information could be incorporated into that article. Lockesdonkey (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One top tier might does not meet WP:NMMA and the coverage is routine sports reporting. Mdtemp (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with Mdtemp Peter Rehse (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Lots of fights but only 1 is top tier--reminds me of a career minor league baseball player.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. 173.171.115.72 (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lacks the top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete MMA competitor who fails NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. 173.171.115.72 (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I found nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. The only coverage I could find were one line mentions or his name in a list of names and that's not the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything to show he meets WP:NSPORTS or WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure what the notability standards are for carnival/side-show wrestlers, but there's no record of him competing in actual sporting events that would show notability. The sources are one line mentions or his name in a list of fellow carnival wrestlers which I don't think is enough to meet WP:GNG. There's also nothing independent to show he's a notable wrestling coach.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see the sourcing required to meet WP:GNG nor do I see him satisfy any other notability criteria. The claims in the article aren't enough to show notability and are either unsourced or fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Author blanked Jac16888 ^Talk 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most runways at an airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced, and possible WP:OR. Is the amount of runways a airport have a important characteristic or trivia? The article was proded but the editor who created it, took down the prod without explanation....William 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 17:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's unsourced, it's original research, even the title barely makes sense. I doubt it even satisfies the general notability guideline - a paragraph in the Guinness book of records is not sufficient. bobrayner (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. My initial Google search on this found discussions of the topic at some aircraft enthusiast websites and general information websites like Yahoo Answers, but not anywhere that I'd consider a clearly reliable source establishing notability of "most runways" as a list topic. The topic is not inherently unencyclopedic, however; for example, a properly sourced statement that an airport has the most (or among the most) runways would be appropriate to include in that airport's article. Searching the phrase "most runways" is tricky, so it's possible something might turn up.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suspect that this article is badly mis-named. It seems to be a list of the number of runways by airport, with the "most" referring only to the top entry not the topic. As such, this information is surely available for the majority of airports and cannot be considered OR, just unreferenced. So if the topic is deemed notable, this page could be moved and not deleted. I see it as the sort of topic a serious researcher might be interested in, though referencing its notability might be difficult. However, to look a little wider, it might be better still to merge the content with the List of longest runways content into a single sortable multi-column table at say List of airport runways, before deleting the present nonsensical title after all I have said. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete basically this is something that might pop up in a trivia quiz down at the pub, but otherwise it is a pointless comparison without a clear purpose that falls foul of WP:NOT and its admonishment that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information - number of runways is certainly not a corollary to how busy a given airport is; for example Honolulu with its six runways has fewer movements than Sydney with its three runways, and I'd bet that Edwards doesn't have anywhere near the same number of movements as either of them. This would be as worthwhile having as List of airports by land area. YSSYguy (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Falls afoul of both WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nomination. --John (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see the notability of the article, it's just an unsourced compilation that borders original research. --Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete - completely useless list, "runway" isn't even defined. Heathrow had as many as 12 runways at one time, but isn't even mentioned. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC) Comment The article's creator blanked the page....William 00:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: copyright violation too, close paraphrasing). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvodaya Mahila Vikas Pariyojana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article consists of snippets of text copied from various reports (such as this, this), but with sufficient differences (both in content and title) to lead one to believe that this report is not a direct copy and that this article is not intended to cover the same topic as those links. Since a search for this article's title yields only this article and a few Facebook groups, one may presume that this is not a notable topic for inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable group of people. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In no way notable, but not covered by CSD. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): no independent sources, no evidence of notability). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Blast radio show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references, could not find very much coverage in reliable sources. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. It seems like there is a consensus not to delete. Which article to merge into which can be settled on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Zhuyeping, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Aside from being a duplicate, I have to say that I am disgusted by the creator's decision to mass-create articles using AWB. This article has barely any useful information, other than 'it exists'. It's been a 13 word stub for six plus years now, and I shudder to think of how many other equally useless quality articles this person has created. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge in reverse. Zhuyeping, Sangzhi should merge into [[Zhuyeping because the Sangzhi part of the name is redundant. There is no need to disambiguate this article so simply Zhuyeping is sufficient. I would possibly say delete for both articles on notability grounds. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge existing human settlements are basically inherently notable, so no deleting please. see WP:NPLACE. agree with Rincewind42, "Zhuyeping" should be title of surviving article, not "Zhuyeping, Sangzhi". - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 15:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge of Zhuyeping, Sangzhi into Zhuyeping, per Rincewind42 and the fact that the latter was created before the former. Besides this, per WP:BEFORE, why are we having a deletion discussion where the nomination is to propose a merge outcome? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wudaoshui, Sangzhi. SarahStierch (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Wudaoshui, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shataping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Shataping, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Longtanping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Longtanping, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Liujiaping, Sangzhi. SarahStierch (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Liujiaping, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Liaojiacun, Sangzhi. Merge away SarahStierch (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Liaojiacun, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lifuta, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Lifuta, Sangzhi GZWDer (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ruitapu, Sangzhi. Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge to Ruitapu, Sangzhi. GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ruitapu. Merge Ruitapu, Sangzhi as a duplicate article. Even if AfD were a forum for proposed mergers (it isn't), Ruitapu is the established article and disambiguation does not appear to be necessary. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. Go for it! Merge away please. SarahStierch (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Duplicate page. There're already Renchaoxi, Sangzhi. GZWDer (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. According to the edit histories, Renchaoxi appears to be the established article while Renchaoxi, Sangzhi is the duplicate. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete both articles as per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhuyeping. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable software product. Article borders on spam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Indeed seems to fail GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An interesting project, but not enough coverage in independent reliable sourced. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per criterion 1 (withdrawn by nominator with no one arguing for deletion). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article is somewhat redundant but should be deleted because it introduces the uncommon neologism Ecopsychology rather than the more conventional (but still niche) conservation psychology. I propose that this article should be replaced with a redirect to that page. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - may be uncommon, but there are plenty of sources cited to demonstrate notability. It returns 200k ghits including more than 4k just in Scholar. It's not the same thing as conservation psychology, but clearly related. I don't have expertise in the area, but these two sources discuss both terms: an APA publication & Human Ecology Review article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With over 4,300 hits on GScholar, this looks like a highly notable topic. The field has its own journal, Ecopsychology and that page, too, distinguishes ecopsychology from conservation psychology. Along with Rhododendrites' sources, there is good evidence in RS that the two fields are considered distinct, and that is good enough for us. The article itself is well-structured has some citations. There might be some synthesis, but nothing that cannot be fixed, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic, good evidence in RS that this is a distinct topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw proposal WP:SNOW. ;-) - yes, it's probably better to clean than delete.

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

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

The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Senior High School, Auckland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

advertising and doubtable notabilty The Banner talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obviously. It's a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why should that make it notable and not advertising? The Banner talk 14:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know very well why, as you're very well aware of the precedent. And how on earth is this article advertising? What is it advertising? How can a state school advertise anyway? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not policy to keep all secondary schools, but that's the precedent with rare exception (I don't love it either). In this case, it's sourced, and if it's the first state senior high school in the country I don't think there's a question. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Obviously not advertising and just as obviously notable given the multiple sources and the longstanding standards applied to public high school. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - taking the sources in the page with those also available, WP:ORG is met. In addition, "New Zealand's first state senior high school" is another factor. Not advertising, it simply states the facts. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. perfectly standard high school article with no essence of promotion. Proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for high schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep - as th proposer is very well aware. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No opposition to speedy renomination. SarahStierch (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertising and doubtable notability The Banner talk 13:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it was the first junior high school in New Zealand and its existence is controversial then it's notable. Where's the advertising? That's an utterly spurious claim for a start. How on earth can an article about a state school be advertising? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons cited in the first AfD, which remain valid. Article has multiple sources and is not advertising. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not advertising, "it was the first purpose built Junior High in New Zealand", and no reason why it cannot meet WP:ORG. Research and expansion is the way forward not deletion. Education to year/grade 10 indicates a high school. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the article about the location. The relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG presently says (after some discussion on the talk page of the notability guideline) "All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." Being "the first entity of its kind in New Zealand" is not a criterion found in WP:ORG or in WP:N, nor is being "controversial" . Granted,common outcomes of countless AFDs have been the keeping of high school and college articles, since the community of editors finds them to be inherently notable. or alternatively to have a high likelihood of having the quantity and quality of references needed for notability. But the common outcome has been the merging/redirecting of primary school and middle school articles, when there is this little evidence of WP:ORG and WP:N being satisfied. Edison (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To bring this here after a previous overwhelming 'keep' discussion is purely and simply disruptive, time wasting, and pointy, as the nominator well knows. Perfectly standard secondary school but the article has some bloated prose that needs recasting and pruning for encyclopedic quality, but otherwise proven to exist and conforms to the very long standing precedent for secondary schools that can be evidenced through hundreds of AfD closed as keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common outcomes is not a reason for keeping, Kudpung. You know that well enough. The Banner talk 13:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that precedent is so old and so strong that it can't be ignored just because you don't like it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a high school. It's a middle school, and WP:COMMONOUTCOMES says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD." The previous AFD was not much of a precedent to be citing as a Keep argument, with lots of hand-waving keep argument which were not based on the relevant notability guidelines "It's unusual and controversial" then "Keep per what he said" from several others, along with "It's the first of it's kind in that country" None of that satisfied the relevant notability guidelines, then or now.. This one also has several non-guideline based arguments. There is no clear reason why middle schools in New Zealand should be kept and ones in the US should be redirected. Does it have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage? WP:ORG also requires national coverage; are the new sources covering this school considered national? The NZ Herald is in the same city as the school, so it might be functioning as a local news source and thus might not reflect national importance, even in a relatively small nation, smaller than 25 US states and 10 US cities. Edison (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm a strong believer in the established consensus that pieces on all but the most exceptional elementary schools should be redirected to their school district or other governing entity. That said, I think there is a case to be made here that as the "first junior high in New Zealand" this particular school does have a notability hook. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]