Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 15: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:05, 15 April 2013 editKleinzach (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,640 edits Khalnazar Agakhanov← Previous edit		Revision as of 04:59, 15 April 2013 edit undoInShaneee (talk \| contribs)15,956 edits Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of Personality. (TW)Next edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->		<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of Personality}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khalnazar Agakhanov}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Khalnazar Agakhanov}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anime Matsuri}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Anime Matsuri}}

Revision as of 04:59, 15 April 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 21 (Tue) January 20 (Mon) January 19 (Sun) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 14 April	16 April >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was userfy. Accordingly I've moved the page to user:Psyc452-BFrancisco/Evolutionary psychology of Personality and left a message at Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard#Evolutionary psychology / Psyc452. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology of Personality

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

Essay, appears to be original research. InShaneee (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete as a WP:OR content fork of Evolutionary psychology and Big Five personality traits. See also this discussion Stuartyeates (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete: I applaud students for wanting to contribute to Misplaced Pages. While their course may be assessed by their instructor based on a rubric, Misplaced Pages editing also has a rubric for what is and is not acceptable. It seems unfortunate that the instructor did not provide students with a rubric for contributing to Misplaced Pages that discussed article issues. This appears to be original research. --LauraHale (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Do Not Delete I do not see evidence provided for why and when this article uses original research. Misplaced Pages states that OR is "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exists." All ideas and assertions in the article come from published, academic sources and research articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-BFrancisco (talk • contribs) 10:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Do Not Delete The writers have listened to your concerns and have made corrections to better the page. They will continue to do so in order for this page to stay up. Please keep in mind this is a sub-section of Evolutionary Psychology focusing on Personality from an evolutionary perspective in specific detail. This article might contain content that is already discussed on Misplaced Pages, but it offers an alternative way of incorporating that content by specifically tying it into Personality from an evolutionary psychological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: Psyc452-NLevy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Do Not Delete All information is cited, and all sources relate directly to the material presented. The point of view is neutral and verifiable. It is in accordance with the guidelines of "No original research". The writing has also been improved to be more encyclopedic and paragraphs are written in prose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyc452-LChen (talk • contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: There are three university students all responding to this article from the same class. Their comments should be treated as only ONE, not three, per WP:MEAT. It should also be noted these students likely have a WP:COI regarding this article because the articles involve their own coursework. --LauraHale (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how man or how few they are, or what their COI is, the argument should be judged on its merits. This is not a count of Votes. We expect the author(s) of an article to defend it here--they almost invariably do, and they should not be criticized for it. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

userify. As far as I can tell, most of the content here merely duplicates at an extremely elementary level the information already found in many WP articles on evolutionary psychology. The exception is that the article seems to emphasise and rely on the application of one particular theory of personality, based on one particular source that uses it. This is not likely to be a representative view. I suggest that using a topic as extremely broad as this as a topic for a new WP article in an education program was not a good idea.

I can see no evidence that this course has taken advantage of any of the facilities provided by our educational program. Who is the instructor? Who is the online ambassador? It is normally their role to check topics in advance.

The only reason I am saying userify instead of delete, is that the academic term is not yet over (assuming this is a spring 2013 course),and thee is therefore a prospect of improvement, if the students will get some guidance. I urger the editors who have been writing the article to urge their instructor to get in contact with the program -- one possible place to start is at WP:Education noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Userify or Move to talk page of big five article: Content on evolutionary psychology of Personality is quite general, not very well sourced, and already covered in other articles (WP:cfork). The exception is the big five section which has some potential (even if only based in a single source), and could maybe be integrated in that article as a summary and/or in the specific articles of each of the factors.--Garrondo (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. While not strong guideline-based-arguments for keep due to the ambiguity of diplomats, there is certainly no strong consensus for delete. (non-admin closure) Mkdw 09:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Khalnazar Agakhanov

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

Non-notable by WP:DIPLOMAT ("Diplomats who have participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources.")

Similar to 2 Category:Norwegian diplomat stubs articles sent to Afd yesterday, there are about 80 minimal stubs in Category:Asian diplomat stubs that may be non-notable. AFAIK Agakhanov, like most other diplomats, has never been involved in an “event of particular diplomatic importance”.

This Afd will be opposed by editors who believe that diplomats and other unelected officials have automatic notability, unlike writers, artists, scientists, politicians, sportsmen etc. What do afd participants think about this? Klein zach 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep. I believe that permanent ambassadors have presumptive notability, just like scientists who hold named chairs, politicians who hold national or international offices and professional athletes. Pburka (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Keep. I also believe that ambassadors have a presumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep This source indicates his being a minister for three different portfolios: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http://www.kommersant.ru/factbook/27736 --Mareklug 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep I agree with (talk). Seems to be fairly notable and satisfies WP:BIO. Article could do with some extra input. scope_creep (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep, Misplaced Pages should have articles on all permanent ambassadors for the same reason it should have articles on all national legislators, judges on national courts, etc. You can call that "inherent notability" if you like, or a presumption that GNG will always be satisfied for such individuals; I really don't care because satisfying notability guidelines (which are a good but not perfect proxy for determining what is or isn't important enough to include) should not be a concern with obviously important subjects such as this, so long as we follow the policies of V, OR, NPOV (which actually are important all the time). Or you can call it an WP:IAR invocation, because deleting articles on permanent ambassadors does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. postdlf (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep on the condition that work is done to bring in more sources, resorting to a Misplaced Pages:Translation if necessary. If not, then I can see this going for a second nomination due to a single source. I checked WP:POLITICIAN and it mentions politicians and judges, but diplomats count as politicians? This is what isn't clear to me personally, though the apparent clarity with other editors is enough to vote for keep for now. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Our article says that a politician "is a person who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making." I think that ambassadors fit this definition, and therefore ought to be covered as politicians who have "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". However I recognize that this interpretation may be controversial. Pburka (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Anime Matsuri

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

Lack of reliable sources. Existing sources are photo essays or cover the subject minimally. Esw01407 (talk) 03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete it does claim notability in having fairly high attendence, but this claim is entirely self-sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep as coverage in reliable third-party sources exist to push this across the verifiability and notability thresholds, including here, here, here, here, and here. - Dravecky (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep per Dravecky and WP:BEFORE, reliable sources have been found solving the AfD issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, if you look into whats been posted already in the article and the new sources, you have about.com which is a questionable source, several Houston Press photo gallery's which only give blurbs about the conventions, an Houston Press article that talks more about the guest then the event, and finally the KHOU calendar, which reads like a press release and includes the statement "We do our best to ensure all information is accurate. However, it's a good idea to visit the website listed or contact the organization or venue to verify event details." I don't want to appear argumentative, and I'd love to see this article survive as it's a growing convention, but I'd rather not have another article like Anime Festival Wichita survive an AFD, and never have anything to update in years except for animecons.com guest lists. Esw01407 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak delete - This is a tough one, given that I had been aware of this con's existence for quite some time. The most promising coverage would be the Houston Press coverage; unfortunately, it's all short blurbs and thus not significant coverage. I believe that About.com is reliable under certain conditions, but its page is merely a profile. And KHOU is a press release; not independent coverage. If there was any reliable, significant and independent coverage on a site like Anime News Network, then I would have surely !voted keep, but alas ANN only has press releases. Narutolovehinata5 16:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak Keep It received coverage by Houston Press and Crunchyroll, as well as having notable attendees listed in the article.--Razionale (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one more clarification, since I talked about the Houston Press coverage earlier. How reliable is Crunchyroll as a reliable source? It's not at WP:ANIME's list of sources. I'll have a look. Narutolovehinata5 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking the Crunchyroll stuff, I can confirm that they aren't really significant coverage. They only show a video of the event made by another website. And the Houston Press coverage, specifically the article, is mainly about the guests. The photo gallery doesn't count as significant coverage. Apparently AnimeCons.com is reliable, but it can't be used to establish notability (otherwise we'd have an article for every single anime convention in North America). Narutolovehinata5 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is part of the nature of the subject that normal sources don't much care. For example, the 69th World Science Fiction Convention is clearly notable by normal sources but has in reality only fewer than 2500 likes on Facebook . Anime Matsuri has about 7 times as many likes . I know, popularity isn't notability and all that. However, I think it would be a shame to delete the article. I hope it can be merged into a broader article somehow as an alternative to deletion. Do you know into which one it could be merged?--Razionale (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

List of anime conventions? Narutolovehinata5 18:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep It's a major anime convention. It deserves an article as much as Sakura-Con and Anime Expo do.WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

(sigh) Weak keep as creator; the sourcing is admittedly borderline for notability, but even the minor and photo-essay coverage in third-party sources is (just about) sufficient to base a minimal article on. Sandstein 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Daydreamin' (Ariana Grande album)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. The artist herself says the album won't be completed until August or September of this year. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: There are unused reliable sources out there, although fans editing the article make it completely hard to give it any sort of decency. Also considering she is still working on the album and hasn't even released many details about it, it's purely unneeded on Misplaced Pages right now. Ar re 03:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lelio Marino

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

Non-notable businessperson Orange Mike | Talk 01:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive and significant coverage over many years.Though much is in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald, the depth and persistence of the coverage, and the range of his business activities, convinces me of his notability. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Article already speedy deleted as G4 hoax. Closing discussion as moot. Schmidt, 00:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Righteous Cowards

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

I cannot find significant discussion of this film in reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. ... discospinster _talk 01:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. There's no proof no Atlantis but...It could exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added byBuckster69 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete for failing applicable notability criteria. To Buckster69, whether this made-for-$49 short film exists or not is not the major concern. Rather, the fact that it has not been the recipient of commentary or analysis in independent reliable sources. This one is spoken of no place except unreliable sources... and THAT's the concern. Please review WP:NF, WP:RS and WP:V to understand our concerns and requirements. Schmidt, 05:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Schmidt. Exactly what I was going to post in my rationale. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Likely hoax... Even if this film DOES exist, Misplaced Pages is not for things made up one day. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 13:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete May exist - I can't find evidence either way. Likely to be a case of 'wannabe' - the film maker is supposedly 15 and appears to be the author of both the article about the film and himself (speedied). Definitely non-notable. Peridon (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Delete (WP:G11) by user:Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Klay Buckingham

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

I cannot find significant discussion of this individual in reliable sources per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Google search brings up only social media and directories. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with this. Social Media is a very important thing in the 21st century. It's how he makes a lot of his money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckster69 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete. The thing is, there are multiple, multiple issues with this article. First off is that the article is written to promote Buckingham and is full of unsourced information. Even if you are Buckingham himself (which I'm inclined to believe), we need coverage in sources that are independent of yourself. By this I mean sources in things such as news reports and the like. (WP:RS) Social media sites are not usable as reliable sources, especially those that are edited by a primary source. At the most they can be used as a WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL source, but that's pushing it and they will never show notability. You do seem to exist, but existing is not notability. (WP:ITEXISTS) As it stands, this could probably be speedied as promotion/spam. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it really does come across as you coming on here to promote yourself, which is never well received. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you are Buckingham it is better to state as much up front. It's not against the rules to edit your own information (as long as it passes notability guidelines) but it is heavily, heavily frowned upon when people do not divulge that they have a conflict of interest. The reason I suspect you are Buckingham is because not only are the names very similar, but given that Buckingham appears to be a relative unknown in the acting world (very little chatter about him that wasn't started by himself), it's unlikely that you're someone separate that just happened to use a similar name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeffrey Carl

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

Non-notable journalist/writer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. GrapedApe (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK and WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 06:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a duplicate--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Differences in usmc training

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

Non-notable school essay with no significant coverage. TB randley 00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: per nom. Grammarxxx 00:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. I saw this go by a bit ago, and wasn't quite sure what to do with it. —Ignatzmice _contribs 02:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete and I will see if I can A10 this. Safiel (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

America's Got Talent (season 8)

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

No cited verification (future event). Musdan77 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to the show's general article, until such time as the first episode actually airs. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Redirect. A little too early. I created the page as a redirect months ago, to the season's section on the main page for the show. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Redirect, agree with TexasAndroid. A bit too early to have his own page. — Joaquin008 13:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Pointless to redirect just to recreate it next month. Gage (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep The show premiers in June 2013. The show has a huge number of sources that verify it's airing. WP:FUTURE is not for events that are verified by reliable sources. The argument to redirect regarding WP:TOOSOON seems largely flawed because much of the lead up is verified and has received widespread coverage. Mkdw 00:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep We have the judging panel and audition cities, thus hitting the minimum involved with a season article like this. Keep at this point as the actual premiere is a month away. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep Will (verifiably) happen soon, coverage is already extensive. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep via Mkdw . srsrox 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Son of Angels. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Spirit Fighter

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

As with Fire Prophet; no sources at all this time, author Jerel Law doesn't have a bio, no reviews AFAICT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Son of Angels. There's just enough to where I would justify a weak keep for the series, so this would be a reasonable enough redirect to that article for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TB randley 00:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was redirect to UCSC Student Associations. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

JECatt

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is no indication of importance or notability on the article. The last AFD was a procedural close. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to UCSC Student Associations, that lists it among the Milan Campus associations. Not notable enough to have its own article. Cavarrone (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Son of Angels

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

As per the articles on the books, Spirit Fighter and Fire Prophet. Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK, author doesn't have an article. I can't find any reliable reviews Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Weak keep. I won't argue too hard if this is deleted, but I did manage to find a small smattering of coverage that could justify an article on the series as a whole. There are three reviews for the books via Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. While these are trade reviews, there has been no consensus as of yet when it comes to whether or not they should be discounted for that. Until then, they technically "count" as far as I know, although I'll admit that I'm sort of undecided as far as that goes. I did find two newspaper articles, one of which I couldn't really pull up but did show up in a few of my news searches. Maybe someone with a HighBeam account can find the full length article and quote it somewhere? I'll see what else I can find, but Christian fiction books almost never get as much coverage as their mainstream counterparts unless they're a very high profile author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep, per Tokyogirl79. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Oliver McGee

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

This subject seems not to be the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources (WP:BASIC). He's also very, very far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC. The best coverage I found was an interview of McGee about McGee on a website for "untold personal stories of both well-known and unsung" persons, which enters the realm of WP:BLPSPS (self-serving claims by the interviewee), and human interest coverage. Generally, the more reliable coverage mentions McGee in passing, and the actual topic of coverage is often what McGee is talking about, as opposed to McGee himself. JFHJr (㊟) 21:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep His profile is a bit eclectic, but he does have a decent academic career, serving as chairman of Civil Engineering at Ohio State, before he transitioned into administrative/political activities. To quote from the awards section of his own bio at his webpage: "the Council for Advancement and Support of Education (CASE) & the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's 1995 State of Georgia Professor of the Year, U.S. Black Engineer Magazine's 1996 Black Engineer of the Year Award, Education College-Level, and Science Spectrum Magazine’s “Fifty (50) Most Important Blacks in Research Science” for 2004. In 2005, McGee was named to Science Spectrum Magazine’s “Top Minorities in American Research Science” List....he is a former member of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Engineering (1998-2001)." We may safely assume that Science Spectrum Magazine, at least, did some study and coverage of his work, providing some coverage under WP:BIO, and then the NSF advisory committees are quite influential, giving grounds on WP:PROF C7, even quite independent of the fact that Fox News airs interviews with him. In the more colloquial sense for notability of, "is this a noteworthy individual?" I think the answer is an unambiguous yes. Ray 01:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep, subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, as well as some significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, such as in this magazine. Therefore, the subject passes WP:GNG. The article should be checked for neutrality so it is not promotional, but AfD is not a replacement for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Keep the material cited above is sufficient to show notability by the GNG. Whether he is a notable academic is not discussed in the article, as far as I can tell he is not--there are almost no citations to his engineering publication.Neither he isnotable under WP:PROF as an academic administrator. But the GNG option in WP:PROF was designed for individuals with careers like his. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2004

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

No indication of notability and lacks significant coverage in independent sources. There weren't even enough competitors to award all the medals.Mdtemp (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete Subject does not appear to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT or have the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The fact that the preceding event (Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2002) was deleted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Acropolis Cup (boxing) 2002 is another indication the Acropolis Cup boxing events are not considered notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG, what very limited coverage there is all seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE. CaSJer (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)