Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 September	8 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid schedule

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

Non-notable academic topic. Article summarizes non-peer-reviewed paper with zero external citations. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a summary of an article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google Scholar search shows about a dozen instances of the phrase being used in this manner, but they are all by the same author, Emin Gabrielyan. This indicates that the term is one coined by a single scholar, and has not been adopted by the broader field in which they work, and therefor is a non-notable neologism (and perhaps a COI - page was created by User: Gabrielyan.) Agricolae (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Agricolae. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 8 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kimball

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:FILMMAKER, appears to be an article written by a COI account. All the titles in the "Media" section are linked to YouTube videos, and "Redstar Books" is Kimball himself. LuckyLouie (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously written by the subject themselves or someone connected to them. Reads like a resume and I'd be surprised if there is anything verifiable available. General rule of thumb, if notability cannot be established beyond primary sources, should be deleted. Too many articles end up getting kept these days based on primary sources alone. Laval (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not every source needs to be considered for notability. Primary sources are acceptable on Wikipedia, see WP:PRIMARY. Not every source in the article is primary. Sources for WP:GNG notability include Halifax Daily News, EastLink TV, Coast to Coast AM - likely more. COI has not been established, but even then it's not a reason to delete. It does read like a resume and marketing and needs help from an experienced Wikipedian. The alternative is punish the newbie alienating them from Wikipedia (pun intended). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to coast is clearly unreliable (famous for it), and it is being used as a primary source here. This [1] is a borderline advertisement for his new show. I don't see any independent coverage from secondary sources on EastLink TV. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EastLink TV is in-depth coverage by a reliable secondary source, acceptable under WP:GNG. Coast to Coast is a reliable for determining the popularity of a UFO expert, in fact it is one of the most reliable sources on that question. It is unreliable for other things - reliability is within the context of the fact being checked. I don't see it as primary, he is a guest on the show (unless he works there or has some connection to the station). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and solicit assistance from experienced editors to clean up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided a rationale to keep the article. Would you like to clarify, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? I'm finding plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources for this documentary filmmaker. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't just link me to a google search. If you want to claim GNG pick a specific source. For example, the NYT piece [2] doesn't actually give any realy coverage of Kimball, it just says, "The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in Nova Scotia. He met Tonnies online about a decade ago; they corresponded for six years before meeting in person, when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary. They ended up becoming close, even collaborating on a play (swapping drafts via e-mail) that was staged at the Boulder International Fringe Festival. " The rest is about them talking together and says some things he said, this is trivial coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include:
Daily Times, The : Aztec to premiere UFO documentary / Film...‎

$2.95 - Daily Times - Aug 22, 2004 "I think the documentary puts Aztec in a positive light," Ramsey said. ... County's high desert landscape and film producer Paul Kimball telling the story of Aztec. Water tunnel documentary is available‎

Halifax News Net - Oct 16, 2009

Stevens co-wrote the series with Paul Kimball, a documentary filmmaker who grew up in Dartmouth and has established a reputation as one of the country's ... Cyberspace When You're Dead - NYTimes.com‎

New York Times - Jan 5, 2011

The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in ... when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary.

Daily Times, The : UFOs: Symposium to 'unveil the truth'‎

$2.95 - Daily Times - Mar 20, 2004 ... alien life on CNN to change their opinions, said Paul Kimball, producer and director of two UFO documentaries, "Do You Believe in Majic" and "Aztec: 1948. Tonight'sTV; Complete daily listings in Spectator TV‎

The Spectator - Apr 28, 2004

Filmmaker Paul Kimball's one-hour documentary looks into the existence of a secret agency called Majestic 12, which some believe was created to cover up the ... Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT story mentions Kimball only as a friend of the subject of the story. The others are variously local news about a UFO film screening and a mention in a local "Halloween" themed filler story. Hardly the serious, in-depth coverage required to meet WP:FILMMAKER.- LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT stories doesn't just mention Kimball. It has paragraphs about their relationship, collaboration, the authors discussion with Kimball etc. And this is just one of the sources noted above. Here is the actual content:

"The last of his friends to whom I spoke was Paul Kimball, a filmmaker who lives in Nova Scotia. He met Tonnies online about a decade ago; they corresponded for six years before meeting in person, when Kimball came to Kansas City to interview Tonnies for a documentary. They ended up becoming close, even collaborating on a play (swapping drafts via e-mail) that was staged at the Boulder International Fringe Festival.

Among their shared interests, it turns out, was the relationship among technology, consciousness and mortality. Their play, based on a science-fiction story Tonnies had written in college, involves two women who turn out not to be, strictly speaking, creatures of organic matter: one is an artificial-intelligence program, the other a human consciousness uploaded into a form that could survive a centuries-long space journey. The very title of Tonnies’s Posthuman Blues blog, Kimball points out, hints at ambivalence about these subjects. But that was the place, he says, where his generally private friend “revealed himself,” post by post. The fact that the blog persists, in public, is what makes it distinct from, say, a journal Kimball owns that belonged to his grandfather and that has been read by perhaps 20 people.

The day before we spoke, Kimball continued, he had linked to an old Posthuman Blues post on his Facebook page, seeking reactions from his own online circle. “So I’m still having this conversation” with his friend Tonnies, he told me, “even though he’s been dead for more than a year.” Eventually, Kimball added, such situations may be routine. “We’re entering a world where we can all leave as much of a legacy as George Bush or Bill Clinton. Maybe that’s the ultimate democratization,” he said. “It gives all of us a chance at immortality.”

After talking to Kimball, I ended up watching a couple of interview clips of Tonnies on YouTube. In one, he discussed “transhumanism,” the techno-scientific quest to transcend the traditional limits of the human animal, death included, whether through merging with machines or fiddling with our genes. Skeptics or opponents of transhumanism are missing the point that it’s well underway, he argued: medicine is transhuman, in that it thwarts mortality. While I didn’t find this wholly convincing, I will concede that it was interesting to find myself in a position to listen to his arguments at all. " Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject of the NYT article might be notable, but not everyone he knew or collaborated with is automatically notable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inheritance, the NYT article doesn't have to be entirely about Kimball, see WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a passing mention then it wouldn't contribute, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG, multiple reliable sources cover the topic in depth enough to write at least a stub article with. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of in depth coverage required to pass the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG, "in-depth" is not a requirement and is different from "significant"... NOT the same thing. Enough sources speak toward the individual and or his works in enough detail to support a short start class article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in sources is trivial and the individual has not been the subject of the articles, contrary to WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stoning of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow

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

This event fails the WP:NOTNEWS policy and WP:NEVENT guideline, specifically there is no enduring notability, one or two mentions in passing does not demonstrate that. There is a spike in news coverage at the time then it all goes away. LGA _talk^edits 23:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A section with several sources was added to cover long-term notability and impact but was deleted by another editor for "undue coverage". It can easily be added again and reworked to fix the notability issue. Also, the incident achieved widespread news coverage, and the case (that of a 13-year-old girl being stoned to death after being raped) is prominent in that there were no other similar occurrences during the civil war in Somalia. --1ST7 (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom - passing mentions do not demonstrate that, there is no claim in the article as to enduring notability, Wikinews is that way ----> .LGA _talk^edits 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There was some coverage around the time of the incident, but not much on the girl/woman afterwards. The incident also had no lasting impact on society; no legislation, for example, came out of it. By contrast, the Soraya Manutchehri stoning was made into both a novel and a film adaptation, yet it's a stub article. As such, the incident is an isolated occurrence with little enduring notability. Middayexpress (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another way to look at it is these types of incidents are indeed common but this one rose from invisibility and received global attention, even condemned in the US Senate for an enduring record (the Congressional Record, Volume 154 Part 18). This is a well written well sourced NPOV article about an incident covered in multiple reliable sources, keep per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A summary public execution by stoning carried out by an Al-Qaeda affiliate, accompanied by shooting of witnesses who objected is not at all common in the modern era, and is highly notable and worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. The sources are there, as a Google Books search shows that the killing has received significant coverage in at least 11 books published in the past five years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enduring notability, clearly not a routine news, I cuncur with Cullen except that I count 12 books covering the event. Cavarrone 20:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't get into a pissing contest about how many books I can find covering this event, but, from Cullen's and my searches linked above I can certainly see far more than enough from reliable academic publishers to demonstrate that this event has become part of documented history rather than just a news event. If you look only for news sources then you will find only news sources: the way to see if a topic transcends WP:NOTNEWS is to look for coverage in books and academic papers. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen, Cavarrone, and Phil Bridger; a mere 60 seconds of searching shows that it meets the GNG. I'd add a gentle trouting of the nominator for unhelpful snideness ("Wikinews is that way"). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the opinions on the academic works related to the subject; I've started adding the books to the article as sources. Is it alright if I ask if there's any opinion regarding how Duhulow's age should be discussed in the article? There's currently a dispute about whether she should be described as a "female" (in reference to the account of some people who witnessed the stoning and estimated her age to be 23) or as a "13-year-old girl" (as her family and teacher said) in the opening sentence. I'm sorry to bother anyone about it, but the dispute has been going on for almost a week and I'm not sure where else to seek another opinion. --1ST7 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 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) 00:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hoban

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the article was sufficiently different than the last version to be deleted. However, Patrick Hoban has still not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It may also be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright infringement. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. The article also has a bunch of problems (including copyright issues) that need to be fixed if this article is kept.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:25, 10 September 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) 00:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Moran (supercentenarian)

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

Two things can be told about James Moran: He won a grain cradling contest, and allegedly died aged 111. Neither of these helps to establish encyclopedic notability. FoxyOrange (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any documented supercentarian should be able to have an article here. Perhaps this cannot be expanded on further, but that is not a reason to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, there is no special notability criterion for supercentenarians. Instead, WP:BIO should be followed, which states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I don't think this is met here. And what is more, James Moran is by no means a "documented supercentarian", because his date of birth is not known for sure.--FoxyOrange (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "documented" usually means "Guinness Book of World's Records" certified. Hardly a measure of notability. Rather we just rely on BIO or GNG as you say, regardless if they are "official", no bias against countries or time periods where birth certificates didn't exist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The best I could find is this mention, no byline, that he was 110 sometime in 1913 in the Dwight, Illinois Star and Herald,[3] not exactly the New York Times. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Three sources exist which verify his claimed age, but subject does not meet WP:BIO. It's not possible to check the Conner source since the book is rare, not held in any libraries,[4] not helping claims of notabilty. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:05, 8 September 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 Return of Ultraman monsters#Bemstar. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bemstar

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirection to The Return of Ultraman is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sourcing and dubious notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partially)/redirect to List of Return of Ultraman monsters#Bemstar, which is the proper place for infos about this character. Cavarrone 05:36, 12 September 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 (non-admin closure) Keep, nomination withdrawn. GregJackP Boomer! 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy in Amber

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

Early, minor work by notable author. Nominated for Edgar award. Not finding any reviews. Suggest redirect to Martin Cruz Smith. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw (as nom)— Thanks to User:Tokyogirl79 for the lesson in how to ferret out book reviews. The article is definitely notable, and I've learned a thing or two. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's cool. These sources were sort of hidden. I've gotten used to finding the hard to find reviews and whatnot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 8 September 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) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium (comics)

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

Two non-notable substances from different comic book continuums. No real world context and I doubt there are sources to add any real world context to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentioned in primary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has anyone looked for sources additional sources? It doesn't appear to be the case. A significant number of pages link to this article. Sources are likely available if looked for. A quick search in search in google for Promethium in Comics pulled up several pages of secondary and tertiary sources. It is likely that the page can be expanded. This is the second time this page has been nominated for deletion. It was determined that the article should be kept after the last time is was nominated. Editors have slowly been adding to the article since then. 42of8 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources are listed on the article, and the sources I see when I looked are either primary sources or non-reliable sources - fan websites, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedia the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a perfect example of this you have added this source to the article [5]. It's an IMDB listing that simply mentions something refereed to as a "a rock called Promethium X on the moon." So lets start, since this is a blurb from the makers fo the film that is being used on IMDB, it is primary. Second it's a plot summary with no real world context. Third, its a passing trival mention that totals two short sentences of something called "Promethium X." so it's far far far below the threshold of significant coverage. Last and most importantly this "Promethium X" from the brief description we have in the plot summary sounds like a totally different substances from the one discussed in the Marvel section of the article that is up for discussion. It fails as a source on every level of what we are looking for. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana: The Rose Conspiracy

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

Prodded but deprodded without addressing the concerns. The prod reason was:

Not notable: does not satisfy WP:NFILM, based on sources or a search which turns up little except video links. Only possibility would be if it were known by some other name in other languages but it seems to be "The Rose Conspiracy" even in Spanish, Portuguese.

Further the claim (which might make it notable) that "it was selected as one of the best works by the Italian Art Critics Association at the Venice Biennale" seems dubious – I can't find it in the sources. Otherwise it seems to only have very limited local coverage and interest. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I pointed out when I de-prodded it, the article does have two WP:RS already, and my Google News archive search revealed what appears to be a third, the Panama Online news ref. I stopped there because three refs is my own personal minimum for "multiple sources," so I felt it met WP:GNG -- but there well may be more Spanish-language news refs, I do not know. Now, I agree that the first news ref, the bylined Reuters news story, doesn't support the statement that it won a major award at the Biennale, but that's not a reason to delete. The claim that "it seems to only have very limited local coverage and interest" is belied by the fact that the 2nd ref verifies that it was selected for the prestigious Venice Biennale, which is rather far away from Uruguay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep a minor short film that received just enough recognition: (three sources) Infobae UOL Terra We do not expect films seen only in museums and art spaces to have the same level of coverage as do big-budget, highly-advertised, stdio-blockbusters... but this did have a London screening in 2008 Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the other one I was mentioning is here. It's more of a short capsule item, I admit, and likely a pick up of the Reuters piece, as both are Portuguese. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which gives us yet another search parameter, thank you: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Searches for Non-English sourcing is proving somewhat more fruitful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uruguay isn't anything like the USA, or even Argentina, so the short art films won't give any top results, but still if one is looking for characteristic samples of Uruguayan cinema he might as well get some articles about them. Locally, Martín Sastre is quite a name in the art cinema and the contemporary art scene. I don't say any short film of his is worth an article, some are just made as art exhibits, but this one has been around for a while, and it tells something about his background. I am for keeping it. Hoverfish Talk 00:55, 8 September 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) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lux Familiar Cup 2011

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

This article contains the result of a poll conducted on a Half Man Half Biscuit fansite. Absolutely no secondary coverage; therefore, not notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this tournament. Gong show 16:28, 14 September 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) 00:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Principality (comics)

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

Long list of non-notable Marvel characters. Seems the term "Principality" itself is a non-notable term that Marvel recently invented to try to group these minor characters into some sort of classification system. All of the links lead to other lists where if you are lucky there might be a stub describing the character. It's an endless mess of list poorly written and unencyclopedic, unrefernced, totally random, and unorganized lists that were all created after the Pokemon fallout to try to group together things to avoid deletion. There is far too much coverage of a minutia of details trying to lump all this stuff together to try to make things pass muster and avoid AFD Ridernyc (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could be something significant in the future depending on what Marvel does with it and if it sticks around, but right now there's not enough information out there to get a good idea what this is all about. 42of8 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe

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

A somewhat random, unrefrenced and indiscriminate list of "Features of the Marvel Universe." The lead basically says this is a totally indiscriminate list of all things Marvel. Appears to have served as a dumping ground for all things non-notable in the Marvel Universe with items being added the to list as their articles faced deletion. The perfect example of why simply gathering things together is not enough to make a hoard of unencyclopedic things suddenly encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could you please explain why this is unencyclopedic? I seems that you are listing things you don't find to be interesting as non-notable after making a half-hearted search for sources and then submitting them for deletion. Many of the articles you say are not notable really are notable but the articles are under-developed but it is likely that expansion with sources can be found. It seems like you are attacking a field of study that you don't care for. 42of8 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is indiscriminate with no inclusion criteria. It' is also unsourced. The majority of the "features" would not pass the GNG, the majority of them will also never have any information on their real world context or development. While I appreciate your passion for the project I'm not sure you have a very firm grasp on policy and consensus of what the project should be. I would recommend reading WP:NOT. This fails multiple sections of policy. The most important of which is list needs a clear inclusion criteria, this has what amounts to no inclusion criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of anything in any of the "Features" listed here, just very brief in-universe descriptions of them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of those policies. It seems like you are looking at this with a very narrow interpretation of the policy that could discourage participation. The policies allow room for pages like this. 42of8 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks unsalvageable. There's no inclusion criteria, and I doubt that it's verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just rename it List of things in the Marvel Universe or something like that. See how many blue links there are in there? Its a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would still have no inclusion criteria and would function only as an index. A category would do the same job. Just put all the Marvel articles in a Marvel category, and you've got this index. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN clearly states you should not destroy a list because you prefer categories. A list article is superior since it gives useful information to help you navigate. The inclusion criteria is rather obvious. If its a notable part of the Marvel Universe then its on the list. Dream Focus 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, but I disagree about the inclusion criteria; it's so vague that superheroes and their superpowers could credibly be added. A better name and more strict inclusion criteria would make me feel better about this article. My first thought was that it could be used as a dumping ground for everything non-notable, but then I thought about why I wanted to keep around a dumping ground of non-notable topics. An index works better, but I'm not convinced that we need one. We've already got a portals and categories, and who decides what's notable enough to be put on this list? If it were verifiable, that would be different. List of cult films, for example, has citations for every film listed. How are people going to decide what is a notable feature of the Marvel Universe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of notable entities. It has a fairly obvious inclusion criterion: everything notable featured in Marvel stories. Arguably you could break it up into separate lists, e.g. List of places in the Marvel universe, and it already references some articles like List of Marvel Comics dimensions. But even if you spun out sections into individual list articles, you would probably still want to have an overview listing all of the lists, and some of the sublists might be too short for independent articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a possible merge target. The fact that solid inclusion criteria have yet to be established for this list is not a valid reason for deletion, as this can be discussed on the talk page or elsewhere. Meanwhile, this article does include an independent source, and if the other articles up for deletion were merged into this one, I am sure we could easily meet the GNG. A rename is possible, if that would help focus the article's contents better. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is beyond doubt that the Marvel Universe is notable, and contains many independently notable places and things; a list may also contain things that are not individually notable enough to merit articles. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Items such as the Baxter Building or Infinity Gauntlet have considerable notability and are detailed in reference works such as Marvel: The Characters and Their Universe and The Marvel Comics Encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 23:33, 12 September 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) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Zoungrana

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable footballer, Fails WP:GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usual non-notable footballer failing WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as a football player, plays in the third highest league in his country. T C N7JM 01:36, 9 September 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) 00:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agira (Ultra monster)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultra Seven through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Searching has not revealed any sources that would allow this to meet the notability threshold. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to not establishing notability. TTN (talk) 10:42, 14 September 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) 01:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicle models used in the military

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

It's unclear exactly what "the military" means in the title, but if it means any military force then this list (if ever completed) would be huge. We already have many pages that are or contain lists of military vehicles by operator (e.g. pages in Category:Lists of currently active military vehicles) so having (what the title indicates is) a single list across all countries/periods is not a good way to organize things. DexDor (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not seem to be an appropriate scope for an article. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague in scope and unfinishable. If intended to be types currently in use, it will be impossible to list all types (security); if intended to be a historic list, it might as well list every vehicle ever produced. This is because in both World Wars, the British government (among others) requisitioned large numbers of vehicles, a proportion of which were allocated to the military. These commandeered vehicles were of many different makes and types, often it was a case of "is it in working order - if not, can it be made so?". Nothing was sacred. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to wide a remit for one article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would be impossible to complete and grow to be massive. We have more specific lists already. Ansh6 6 6 19:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I have no idea how this has survived since 2005 given its obvious problems around scope. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 14 September 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 Nomination withdrawn. Withdrawn. Thank you for finding the necessary sourcing User:Yngvadottir! Jujutacular (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farsund Hospital

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

Unsourced article. My searches were able to verify its existence, but nothing more. I can't find enough to constitute an article. Jujutacular (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a surprising amount of news coverage; one has to search the local name, "Farsund sykehus". I've added information from three articles from this year and last year (one at NRK national TV), and I can see lots of articles in the local paper from the year it closed, 2007, listed at the Norwegian search engine, kvasir.no, but can't get to them directly so I'll have to do a further search before I can add some of them. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Bergin

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

Doesn't seem to be notable - Only one of her books was published by a non-self-publishing company; there are few to no mentions of her as either "Bonnie Bergin" or "Bonita Bergin" and what mentions there are seem to be the same repeated profile or on the website for her dog training school, or passing mentions in dog training books (usually as 'she's trying to teach dogs to read, this is cool / funny') Said school may be notable, and the service dog group may be notable, but I don't believe Bonnie herself is. I found claims that she invented the concept of the service dog but I couldn't find anything reliable to back up the claim - it's mentioned here but it isn't really delved into anywhere else except in interviews with her (and how reliable can those be), and the reliability of that site seems shaky at best to me. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 17:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bonnie Bergin is credited with inventing the concept of the "service dog", even coining the term and founding the first training program for dogs to assist the physically handicap. Notable via WP:ANYBIO #2 "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Sources exist in a Google Books search, one example[6] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google news archive search makes notability obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articvles like this establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 11 September 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 Cockpit. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left seat

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

If indeed the left seat is normally used by the pilot in command and the right seat by the co-pilot (currently, there are citation needed tags), then this information should be included in the cockpit article. There is just no need for these two articles, especially because for most "ordinary" people, the terms "left/right seat" do not have any link to aviation (so that a redirect to "cockpit" would not be appropriate, either). FoxyOrange (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally speaking, if an article only contains the information that can be conveyed in one sentence then it's better to put that sentence in a more comprehensive article. So add to Cockpit (and perhaps to Pilot and Co-pilot too): "Usually the pilot sits in the left seat and the co-pilot in the right seat." BayShrimp (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I don't see the terms in use outside aviation, as motorcars don't have the aircraft-style dual controls and therefore have "driver's seat" or "driver's side", left or right depending on the country. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 20:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info (if properly cited) to the cockpit article. Can't imagine this article will ever be more than a few lines long.--Dmol (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect both to Cockpit. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - any worthwhile information from both into cockpit. It will otherwise have to spend life as a permastub. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any point in redirection to cockpit as users may be searching for the right and left seats of other vehicles. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 00:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources and the title is too ambiguous. The configuration of flying machines varies - the primary seat in a helipcopter is on the right, not the left; and some trainers like the Tiger Moth have fore and aft configuration. Warden (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the WP:COMMONNAMEs for airline useage. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not clear. Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Warden (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move both to a disambiguated title (not sure what, maybe Left seat (cockpit) and Right seat (cockpit)), then merge to Cockpit to maintain edit histories. Ansh6 6 6 19:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a reasonable compromise that would retain the attribution (note this would be best done as a move without leaving a redirect). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Merge. I agree with User:Ansh666 and would follow their suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljpernic (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 September 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 (CSD A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Whittemore

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

No Notability, Unencyclopedic, possible COI, wrong tone, etc. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 16:49, 7 September 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) 01:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zorin OS

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

A consensus of sorts formed at Talk:Zorin OS is: to take this to AfD again. And so done. Shirt58 (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only third-party sources are reviews from Katherine Noyes, who routinely reviews Linux distros; that doesn't seem to show notability and even if it did, that's the only third-party author who seems to have given Zorin OS any attention at all, which is not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia. DistroWatch does not contribute towards establishing notability as you can simply buy an entry in DistroWatch. The subject also comes nowhere close to meeting WP:NSOFT in any way. - Aoidh (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Is there an Ubuntu Wikia? If so, this is where these Ubuntu fork articles belong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)
Delete—Yes, there's coverage, but not (in my opinion) significant coverage, nor does the coverage attest to the significance of the distro. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Simply not enough independent in-depth sources yet. Yworo (talk) 14:56, 9 September 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) 01:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Huntsberger

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

Non-notable Comedian. Claim to fame is appearing on Comedy's Prem. Blend, regularly appearing on a podcast, and being a semi-finalist on Last Comic Standing. All articles are either pure promo, or releases dealing with appearances. IMO it's bad when I can repeat "David Huntsberger is a stand-up comedian whose voice you might" by heart because of how many articles start exactly the same. Caffeyw (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not very notable, but there are still a few hits here and there from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the significant, meaningful external coverage. Neutrality^talk 14:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only see a fe w brief mentions in local media. Ridernyc (talk) 23:18, 7 September 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) 01:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arslan Baig

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

Article was deleted as an A7 on aug 7 and re-created eight minutes later. I tagged as a BLP prod on Aug 20 as there are essentially no sources. I am unable to find any source material online for this singer. It looks to me that he is not yet notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Diannaa (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom has pretty much covered it. The "sources" in the article are YouTube videos posted by the subject and friends and the subject's Facebook page. I couldn't find anything usable elsewhere. The performances listed include sets in cafes and at unspecified "fashion event[s]". Maybe WP:TOOSOON, probably [[WP:NOTEVER]]. Stalwart111 04:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but did not find anything that would help towards WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not evident. --VI-007 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 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) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reevoo

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

may not meet WP:CORPDEPTH: a Google News search for the company's name turns up only [7] and [8], neither of which is primarily about the company. The business2community.com story cited in the article just presents some information from Reevoo's market research (alongside others') without telling us about the company itself; moreover business2community.com has over 4 000 registered contributors, according to its about page. The internetretailer.com story cited in the article is mainly about Reevoo's market research, with about three sentences concerning the company. Anyone can add information to Crunchbase. —rybec 05:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Seems to be an advert for a company that collects and recycles reviews. I see nothing notable about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 11 September 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) 01:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Crash Engine

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

Unsigned band. A cursory search doesn't turn up any sources. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any indication that these guys meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND or WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just reverted copyvio from the band's press kit to the last clean version. No opinion on notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I found three sources. There are some reviews in some online magazines, and the band's music was used in the film Last Man Running. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 10 September 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) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AReputation

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

Article is about a website that does not seem to be notable, possible COI Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 15:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly promotion. Especially amused by saying it has something to with a globe! It sounds like the usual company that gets paid to write glowing "reviews" or other misleading user-generated content? Hard to tell if they are legit or not from the article. Not even a good advertisement, since they cannot even write English. W Nowicki (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another WP:ADVERT from a NN PR company. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 11 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avaidika

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

WP:DICTDEF, but mainly part of a walled garden by this editor based on his own novel analysis of vedic terminology to apply it to modern science. DMacks (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I nearly tagged it when it came across NPP, but I thought it might develop into a real article. Hasn't happened yet, and unlikely to do so. WP:DICTDEF is correct. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and i have first hand contact with the speakers of a language which is about the most accurate in existence in terms Sanskrit variations, I clearly show with valid referencing what i am putting forward, I do not see a reason why this should be deleted.--Prestigiouzman (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've just taken another article by this editor to AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tar Ua Mhesa and have found another dictionary type article Anulomana which I may also take to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 15 September 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 per copyright violation found in all revisions of the article as well as the lack of sufficent notability assertions. AngelOfSadness talk 13:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barani Institute of Information Technology

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

Stubby article with little assertion of notability and no evidence of it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go ahead and speedy this, would you be good enough to point out the assertion of notability it makes? I'm not seeing anything.--Laun chba ller 16:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, since that's apparently what it's a part of. Ansh6 6 6 03:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 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) 01:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tejinder Singh

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

The article shows he was nominated for an award. That passes CSD. There are references. That passes BLPPROD. The other references seem to be written by him, not about him. This is just the gentleman doing his job. There is insufficient notability here. The gentleman fails WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 23:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure this still live. the article was detagged. Dloh cierekim 23:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non administrator WikiProject India editor's observation) Added back, the AFD nomination is neither withdrawn nor closed, m/ User:Timtrent. --Tito☸Dutta 00:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have just been through the alleged references, and many of them do not pass muster. The gentleman certainly exists and is a journalist. The rest of the article puffs him up to be that which he is not. The AfD banner has now been removed by '2' editors and a sockpuppetry report has been made. One of them has stated that he is not Tejinder Sigh on the article's talk page. Lady MacBeth srpings to mind here. No-one has suggested they were, previously! Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course they aren't! Dloh cierekim 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Significant and living, but does not meet WP:GNG Dloh cierekim 20:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 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) 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hardik Malaviya

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Article is about Hardik Malaviya (Fictional Character) but no reference was provided. It looks like a total vandalism as the article creator is also Hardik98248. Sourov0000 (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 23:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt There is a bit of history of various approaches to creating articles on this subject which then have to be deleted: [9]. The present version is woven around a character named "Hardik" in Go Goa Gone; it isn't clear whether this shares anything more than a forename with the subject of this article, which has no substantiating evidence. Being a "Naghty Student" isn't notability in Wikipedia terms. AllyD (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:24, 7 September 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) 01:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies

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

Fails WP:CORP rather plainly and has been so tagged since May 2012 with no improvements made to indicate that there is any notability of this society. jps (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worked on this article a few months ago. No signs that this organisation has any serious mainstream coverage and thus fails WP:CORP/WP:FRINGE#Notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a few mentions, but nothing near enough to write an independently sourced article or indicate that the society have had any particular impact. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! I find the SIS web site to be an excellent resource. I work as a geologist, so I know only too well that the gradualist approach cannot answer all questions. Many catastrophist related ideas have some merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC) — GeoVibecke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As indicated by Doug: WP:USEFUL, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteMerit or usefulness to some people isn't relevant here, the issue is does it meet our criteria of notability. I've searched in the past hoping to improve this article and failed. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- An early reaction was that this was going to be about a bunch of cranks, WP:FRINGE applying, but some of their proceedings seem to relate to past events that are clearly not in that category. British Archaeological Reports publish a lot of stuff, but not the rubbish that one tends to get from the cranks. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your policy based argument for keeping this article? When it comes to notability, it doesn't matter if they are a bunch of cranks or not as long as the article satisfies applicable notability guidelines. No one is proposing to delete this article merely because they are cranks. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:19, 12 September 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) 01:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Surjko

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

On notability grounds - fight record is only for non-notable organizations Peter Rehse (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet both WP:GNG and WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and doesn't meet the notability standards for kickboxers.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of QI episodes

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

Article fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. No sources for tables of information containing guests or winners of individual game show episodes. Article contents fall under WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Details contained within <ref> coding in the Series section are merely anecdotes or details about episodes—not links to sources that provide verification of score data presented in tables.

This is not a series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldom notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are.

Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) AldezD (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because each individual season of a game show does not fall under WP:EPISODE, WP:GNG or WP:N, and the entirety of details contained with in each individual season are unsourced:

AldezD (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Comparing QI to quiz shows such as Deal or No Deal and Figure It Out is totally disingenuous and a false attempt at bolstering the argument as they are entirely different programmes. The content of these articles may be poorly sourced but that in itself is not a reason to delete. These are excellent, informative articles that improve Wikipedia with their existence. Deleting them serves no purpose. violet/riga _^[talk] 14:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are nothing more than recaps of panel games. The extraordinary level of detail within each episode falls under WP:CRUFT and does not meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE. AldezD (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what your opinion is, I just await an explanation as to how this project would benefit from such deletions. violet/riga _^[talk] 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hang on a minute, don't we list all the HIGNFY episodes, who appeared, who won, etc? And don't we recap episode storylines in countless drama series in a similar way to what is done here? I don't personally think WP:EPISODE is a valid reason to delete here. That would only apply if someone decided to make an article for every single episode, rather than for each series. I tend to agree that comparing this to shows such as Deal or No Deal is misleading. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article for people to use. I, for example, enjoy QI, and using this article I can easily find and choose an episode to watch based on the guests present. It is a useful article, all the important information (episode/guests) is correct, and as such there is no reason whatsoever to remove it. Speverendrooner 17:33, 7 September 2013 (BST)

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. This does not address WP:GNG, WP:EPISODE, and WP:CRUFT. AldezD (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Violet/Riga. These bundled nominations are often misguided, comparing apples with oranges. QI is easily notable and so are the episodes that make up the series. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no linked sources within the articles nominated that provide criteria for individual episodes of this show to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, there is an extraordinary level of WP:CRUFT in these nominated articles. AldezD (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Violet/Riga QI is not a conventional game show. The entries have been checked by people who work on the show and are deemed accurate. The articles are a useful resource for people catching up with the series (such as those who live in the USA, where it has only just become available legitimately) and for people wanting to check out what topics were covered. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is the availability of resources such as this, which cannot readily be found elsewhere. That's why there are no linked sources. Wikipedia is itself the resource. Guinevere50 (talk) 1:14, 7 September 2013 (EST)
Keep The nominator's rationale is a fair one, and obviously concerns about sourcing need to be addressed. However, I'm not entirely sure that I agree that this article fails to meet WP:GNG simply on the basis of QI not being a fictional series and its episodes not "advancing" the show. We have many lists on Wikipedia of episodes of non-fictional TV series, some of which have even been featured (e.g. List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Chartjackers episodes, and, for better or worse, List of QI episodes itself). Personally, I consider these articles more of a boon to Wikipedia than a hindrance, hence why I would prefer to see them kept. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's something quite bizarre in nominating a featured list for deletion. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I think the article might need a few tweaks to remain worthy of its featured list status (I notice some blank references, etc), I don't see any reason Wikipedia would be a better place for its deletion. It's a useful reference point for people wanting to catch up on the episodes, which are regularly repeated and released on DVD. This isn't a "game show" in the same vein as the other cited by the nominator, but a comedy panel show, which implies AldezD didn't know anything about the show before nominating. Nobody wins £500 or an Austin Metro at the end. Bob talk 20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a useful article about a popular programme. The information in the pages is very hard to find elsewhere. QI is not a game show, it is a comedy quiz that provides interesting little-known information about people, places and ideas, and debunks common misconceptions. It's often hard to remember which QI episode contained a particular piece of information, and these pages can be used to look it up - which makes them very useful. --Madang1965 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the keep rationales given above. Rankersbo (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep this is a nomination that is absurd and forces me to question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also see this similar AfD from the same user. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep this is a useful article and the programme is popular. The information is difficult to find elsewhere. These pages are used to find certain episodes or to find a certain guest can be very useful - I'd question the WP:COMPETENCE of the nominator who seems to have a vendetta against episode lists - I'd point out this other AFD too. I agree with the comment above - how is WP supposed to benefit from this article being deleted. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:34, 12 September 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) 01:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of FC Politehnica Timișoara

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

Contested proud under the rationale that it was a reasonable spinoff. As a completely unreffed article full of pov it is not a reasonable spinoff. The club's article has a reffed history that is much more encyclopedic than this. As it is reffed it is unclear what could be merged. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficient notable content to merit a spin-off article. Giant Snowman 20:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is unsourced with indication that it meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a sourced history already exists in the main article. The main article is no so large that a separate history article is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 11 September 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) 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lyons (actor, entrepreneur)

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

Speedy delete does not meet WP:ANYBIO, I suspect it is probaably a vanity page. Author persistently removing speedy delete notices, despite being told not to. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a valid article. The author is citing reputable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristofmcking (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - let's have a look at the sources in this stable version. Reference 1, 3,4 and 5 are to crunchbase, which uses Wiki software, so is editable by anyone including the subject who apparently wrote the pages [10], and doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. References 2, 6, 7 8 and 9 do not mention Steve Lyons. 6 establishes that an app exists, but not its notability. 7 is about a TV show, 8 an interview of JJ Abrams by someone, and 9 is a closed blog. The author (you) hasn't cited any reliable sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the refs are not reliable, vanity page. GregJackP Boomer! 16:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy STRONG delete: I am very impressed with this editor's autobiography. He remained neutral, factual and impersonal. PrairieKid (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete interesting twist, instead of "three kids and an app" it seems "one kid and three apps". But still not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 23:53, 8 September 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) 01:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garreth MacDonald

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

Non-notable individual CrazyJulian (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oregon's hockey team is a club team, and coaching a club team is no more notable than sponsoring the school chess club.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet criteria of WP:NHOCKEY or WP:NCOLLATH, and does not pass WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG; coach of a non-notable club team. Reso lute 13:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Kumarr Pathela

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

Speedy template removed. Living person, no indication of notabilty. asnac (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. KTC (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Air Charter

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

This corporate charter/aircraft lease company fails WP:CORP. The article is based solely on one self-published website, and a google search does not reveal anything that would establish the significant third-party coverage that is needed according to that notability guideline. A search at the Flightglobal Archive does not produce anything, either. I have to admit that I wrote a good part of that article myself in 2010, using my (then valid) Per aspera ad Astra (talk · contribs) account. Back then, I obviously was not that familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, otherwise I would have long since AfD'ed it. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FoxyOrange (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit one more reference --Gelli63 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gelli63, your additional reference ([11]) is just a directory-like entry at the airport website. This is not the significant coverage needed to pass WP:CORP.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

approved by the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt --Gelli63 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, airlines are not inherently notable. The relevant inclusion criteria are listed at WP:CORP. In case of ACM Air Charter, they do not seem to be met; merely being a "registered company" does not suffice.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANts P2P

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

This article summarizes one of several academic projects that looked into applying novel optimization techniques to the problems of anonymous peer-to-peer file sharing. Coverage in reliable sources is limited to a single Slycknews article. While the project has been mentioned a handful of times in the peer-reviewed literature, there is not sufficient coverage or follow-on work for this topic to be considered notable per WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 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) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Easylink

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

As per previous Limebourne AfD. Short-lived, long defunct bus operator. Redirect to London Central ~~or London General~~. Aycliffe ^Talk Previously Tommietomato. 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22. Snotbot t • c » 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ DELETE - very short-lived non notable company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources other than Wikipedia for verification. Belatedly signed at--Charles (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some sources exist ([12]) but not enough for an article. But why London Central as the target? Its parent company was Durham Travel Services ([13], [14]), which has a hugely inaccurate (and unsourced) article but is definitely notable ([15], [16] and more offline), so let's take the opportunity to make two crap articles into one decent one. Merge with Durham Travel Services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.183.237 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

London Central is the target as this is its current form. Merging with DTS would just be silly as that too is defunct. Saying that I will also AfD it.aycliffe ^talk 07:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've just had a look at the article and it suggests that DTS was Harris Bus, not London Easylink. aycliffe^talk 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that article's wrong - check out the sources I linked to (whoever created that article seems to have just made up its content). There is no "current form", it collapsed - redirecting to a company that happens to run its routes now is pointless since we're never likely to mention Easylink in it. 81.178.183.237 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot see how a bus company that operated two route for a few year until it went bust in 2002 can possibly be notable. One might redirect to a list of London bus companies (if we had one listing it) but not merge, save possibly minimally. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 11 September 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) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Kakon

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

Can't see passes WP:GNG. Web refs seem to be repastes of his own press bio, he works at laguitare.com. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom definitely fails WP:GNG. Finnegas (talk) 20:37, 9 September 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) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City First

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

Local ticket with no notability, but actively campaigning in local body election. the previous article name "City First (Political Party)" gave the false impression that this is a party. Was previously prodded, but got deprodded with the following edit summary: "rmv prod; by definition deleting a political article is not "non controvertial", & should be discussed. also, they do have at least some nz coverage. If thats not enough,then merge into something suitable?" There is nothing else that is suitable, though. The ticket is headed by two sitting councillors (no WP articles for them) and it got mention in the media with regards to what these two councillors are up to during the election period (i.e. the article was more about the people rather than the ticket that they had formed); no further coverage. This organisation is a very long way off achieving notability. Schwede 66 01:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what about municipal politics and/or municipal elections in nz? what about "politics in/of christchurch"? Lx 121 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand local elections, 2013 is the only existing article that I can think of that may be suitable. Schwede 66 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nascent party of two local candidates does not come close to meeting WP:GNG or any other guidelines for that matter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in media to be notable. Adabow (talk) 05:40, 8 September 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 Cyber Wars (film). Delete; the title is a valid redirect so then recreate & redirect to Cyber Wars (film) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Wars

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

Article was previously deleted (under a slightly different title, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber-Wars. The reason given then was: Article does not assert that this browser-based game meets WP:WEB. Seven years has past, and it appears that this video game still may not be notable.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  04:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several Google searches returned no usable results. Seems non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyber Wars (film), for which a hatnote already exists. I couldn't find anything for this. Ansh6 6 6 19:41, 8 September 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) 01:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative press (U.S. political left)

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

PROD contested by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). This is an indiscriminate list which simply seems to advertise/promote the media of a certain political ideology. The list is not supported by reliable sources, and neither is the inclusion/definition of many of the entries as either "alternative" or even "political left" - seems to be original research in that respect. Giant Snowman 09:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge together with Alternative press (U.S. political right), into a new list article List of U.S. alternative political publications (or similar title). This is essentially a list article, as is the corresponding "political right" article. --NSH001 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate list which is only microscopically inclusive at the moment and would be massively overblown if fleshed out comprehensively — that is, assuming we can all come to some common understanding of what is and is not "alternative," which is unlikely. Just as a taste of how huge a proper list would be, here is English-language press of the Communist Party USA and here is Non-English press of the Communist Party USA. That's just the Communist Party, mind you, the Socialist Party had more than 500 newspapers itself, not starting to count magazines. Not to mention the Socialist Labor Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the New Left, every left wing splinter group, non-party immigrant radical publications, the anarchist movement, the syndicalist movement, radical union shop papers, non-"mainstream" liberal publications. We're talking probably 5,000 titles in this incomprehensible mishmash of a format, all told. I have sympathy for the concept here, compiling blue links across political tendencies, but this is not definable, non-completable, and of dubious utility. A "bad list," if you will. Carrite (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this one, too, here is Non-English press of the Socialist Party of America. Like I say, the total count of Socialist Party newspapers runs to more than 500. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Better done through categories. The current list relies on a single source which might even be a copyvio (not sure). It's not a bad idea, but I think if there were 4 or 5 sources that label the pub's "alternative press", and pick the top ones by some criteria (circulation), and then call it "Top alternative press publications", that would solve the sourcing and indiscriminate problem. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also, the deletion discussion for the very similar article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political right) (2nd nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000:, surely it would have been better to wait for the outcome of the 'left wing' AFD to gauge community consensus? Giant Snowman 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that it would be more functional and egalitarian for both articles to be discussed simultaneously. Otherwise, the U.S. political right article would essentially be receiving preferential treatment, allowed a "free pass" while qualifying for deletion in the exact same manner as this article. Also, the deletion rationale above applies equally to both articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What utter nonsense. Giant Snowman 09:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you !vote at the other nomination? What utter nonsense? Whatever. I stand by my decision in this matter. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I agree both topics are equally non-notable? Yes. Does it make sense to wait for the outcome of the first AFD before starting a second, to see if the community agrees/disagrees with me? Yes. That's why your "it would be more functional and egalitarian for both articles to be discussed simultaneously" comment is nonsense. Giant Snowman 09:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People often group AfD discussions together about related articles as bundled nominations. My nomination of the "political right" article is actually quite similar to such, except that it's a separate discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's clear from the discussion above that the list would have to be managed through the use of sub-lists. I don't think the potential size of the list is an argument for deletion if that is done. The criteria for inclusion can be decided by discussion on the list's talk page. Given the systemic bias inherent in U.S. mainstream media, I think it worth making the effort to produce a comprehensive list, an example of where Wikipedia can provide a useful service. --NSH001 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the comment above about treating the right and left the same, I don't think that necessarily follows. The fundamental problem with this title for a list of the left press is size; the problem with this title for the right press is lack of definition of what constitutes "right." There might be a way to retitle so that only the current (rather than the historical) press is included that would result in a satisfactory list, I suppose that is possible. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a title at the top that makes no distinction between left and right, though admittedly that was prompted by my dislike of a parenthetical disambiguator that serves no disambiguation function. Size isn't a problem if it's dealt with through sub-lists. I'll have to think about the suggestion of restricting it to current publications, for instance what happens when a publication goes out of business in the future? --NSH001 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unmanageable list with unclear criteria that will likely be disruptively edit-warred over if someone with a strong POV gets their hands on it. Ansh6 6 6 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what about the "Alternative media" articles? Left and Right. Ansh6 6 6 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The criteria for inclusions in this list are too unclear. How do we really know that all the things on here lacking articles truly qualify as part of the "political left". Anyway, the meaning of the term and the orientation of the paper changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 14 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Maksakovsky

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

Single source and no real claim to notability (published in a run of 1300 seems to be most significant claim). A bit too asserted for CSD, in my opinion, so here we are. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the original printing had a run of 1500, but Thoreau's Walden had fewer. What is important is that in 2004 it was translated and reprinted by a significant publisher and now has over 100 library copies in Worldcat (generally enough for a keep for a figure being brought back from 100 years of silence) and reviews in journals (Science and Society, etc.). The publication of his thoughts 80 years after his death is a significant indication of notability, not how important they were in his time. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. If it's only his book that has any significance, we should have an article about the book, not him. And we can't have an article about either without reliable secondary sources to provide us the material for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with a move + edit to an article about the book. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has received significant coverage in recent serious Marxist journals: Richard B Day in Historical Materialism 10:3[17], Hadas Thier in International Socialist Review [18], Stavros D. Mavroudeas in Science and Society [19]; Google Books indicates a significant number of citations. I've not checked for Russian sources. Regarding claims that he's not notable because he only wrote one book, that is contradicted by WP:AUTHOR and WP:SCHOLAR: both only require a single contribution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 9 September 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) 01:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arden Leigh

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

Individual lacks secondary sources. Claim to fame is a single book. Appears to be NN and fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment from admin whose PROD was refunded There appear to be some GBook hits that are not related. Someone removed a lot of not-so-great-sources that I've restored. Don't believe she meets WP:GNG but there are a lot of G hits to sift. Dloh cierekim 13:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the one who cleaned up the sources the first time around. The problem with them is that although there looks like there's a lot at first glance, the sources are all pretty much trivial at best. Many of them could be considered primary sources. Here's my rundown of the sources:

Sources

[20] This is a notification of an upcoming event. Even if it wasn't, Leigh writes for the magazine and anything from them would be a primary source.
[21] A nn blog.
[22] An article that Leigh wrote for the website, so a primary source.
[23] A book review, but by a website that Leigh writes for, so primary.
[24] This isn't about Leigh specifically, but about several pickup artists that give their advice on sex and dating. It's trivial at best and could be considered a primary source in some aspects since the article is an advice-type one. Not something that could really give notability, in any case.
[25] This is an interview on a news show and is more of the "let's give out dating advice" type of thing. Only Leigh is featured, but at the same time it runs the risk of being seen as a primary source in some ways since she's giving out advice. I'd argue that this might be usable in some ways, but it's not something I'd personally use as a RS.
[26] This a brief mention in relation to a photo of a Penthouse Pet. It's trivial at best.
[27] This is The Sun, which is pretty much a tabloid paper. We can't really use it as a reliable source when you get down to it.
[28] Another advice column-esque article where many pickup artists are featured and mentioned giving advice. Leigh isn't featured in-depth, so this is trivial at best.
[29] This didn't come up for me initially, but a cached version showed me that this is ultimately a nn blog entry.
[30] Trivial mention of her being at an event, which cannot show notability.
[31] I'm actually unsure as to whether or not this would ultimately count as a blog or not when you get down to it. It does have an editorial board, in any case. However even if we consider that Bustle is a website that could count as a RS, this is ultimately not something that would really give notability. There's no in-depth coverage of Leigh, just criticism of one of the advice column-esque articles that she participated in with other people.
[32] This is her official profile for Auziliary, so it's not usable to give notability.
[33] Non-notable blog entry.

In the end there just isn't anything out there to give Leigh enough notability to merit her own article at this point in time. The only one that's remotely usable is the news show interview and that isn't enough to give notability. As far as the other links go, even if we consider the advice column type articles as non-primary, they're more trivial mentions than anything else and no amount of trivial mentions are enough to give notability. I just can't find enough to show that Leigh is particularly noteworthy in her field either, so we can't really keep her on the "groundbreakign within their field" category either. I don't want to go "other stuff does/doesn't exist", but we couldn't establish notability for several of the people involved in The Game, so it's unlikely that we could justify enough notability for Leigh based upon these sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Like[reply]

Comment Complicated subject. Other sources: Yahoo! Daily Shot News, NBC PA Live, Las Vegas CBS, CBC (Canada). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure what is complicated. The additional resources you provided are all primary and not secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentEnough "trivial" coverage can add up to notability, however, I don't think so in this case. Trivial or primary as they may be, we can hash it out here. We need more significant coverage, and coverage must cover all of the content. Dloh cierekim 13:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually unusual for a first-time author (or any author) to get this much mainstream TV exposure. It's because of the titillating headline of course "female pick up artist", perfect for TV audience. However I did read in a post about her somewhere that she is more than a gimmick, it is based on feminist philosophy about the "agency" of women to have whatever they want whenever they want, or something (forget the exact academic lingo), so it's more than a gimmick. I think she may actually discuss this in the CBC interview in which she defends pick up artists, material of course which could be included in the article. --Green Cardamom (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Primary? These are reliable sources, independent of the subject, they independently invited her onto the show, independently chose the questions to ask, she has no connection to the TV stations (presumably). Journalistic interviews are usually acceptable as sources in written form, so I assume TV and radio news appearances are as well. It's not the same as if she wrote an article herself when there is a journalist controlling the discussion. Presume there is journalistic integrity since the sources are reliable (TV news shows). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - These are primary sources, interviews typically are considered as primary - regardless of format. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Yes, "Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources," but there is an absence of secondary sources. reddogsix (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

interviews typically are considered as primary - a heuristic position :) My experience is interviews are usable so long as in reliable sources. The reason as stated above, interviews are not controlled by the interviewee they are controlled by the journalist (in this case producer of the show) who have editorial control over everything, it's an original production/episode of the TV show. Some content in the show is original to the subject, but that is true in every news article that includes quotes. It's true there is no original analysis by the journalist (i think - have not listened through them), so it's lacking in that degree which makes it less than perfect as a source, which is why we need more sources other than just interviews. Maybe if I get some time I'll listen through them and see if there is any original analysis by the reporters. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to The New Rules of Attraction. Her book received significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Though numerous, the coverage does not rise to the level of significance and does not show her to be notable. She wrote a not notable book and is flamboyant Dlohcierekim 14:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage addresses the subject (or her book) directly and in detail. By the definition provided in WP:GNG that is significant. Significant doesn't mean important. Pburka (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per breakdown of nn sources above. ~ Boomur [talk] 00:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here's more significant coverage in another reliable source: Review at Jezebel. Pburka (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person lacking sufficient reliable, third-party source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm very surprised that editors continue to say there are insufficient reliable sources. Admittedly, the Sun is a tabloid, but it's still a newspaper with editors and, importantly, huge circulation, and there's nothing in its coverage which seems suspect. I've heard no-one question Jezebel's reliability. What about The Times? Or El Confidencial, the Spanish financial and economic paper? Pburka (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment huge circulation doesn't necessarily make the Sun a reliable source. The other coverage, as noted by some other editors, seems to mostly be buzz about Leigh's book and philosophy, not the woman herself. For that reason, I think an article about the book itself would be more appropriate, per your suggestion above. ~ Boomur [talk] 20:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reliability isn't a Boolean property, though, and the Sun is reasonably reliable in that it does have editorial oversight. I think that circulation does have some impact on notability: we can assume that some significant fraction of the Sun's 2.4M readers read that article. WP:Notability suggests that "fame, importance, or popularity…may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines…". I believe that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and that the coverage in less reliable sources (e.g. blogs, the Sun) and sources which might be considered primary in the context (e.g. CBS, CBC) should be considered as enhancing the acceptability of the subject. Pburka (talk) 22:14, 15 September 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) 01:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shams Ali Qalandar

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

Non-notable religious leader. Apparently known from a single book of poetry which he wrote, and in which the publisher added biographical details in posthumous editions. No independent reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Locally renowned Sufi Saint in the country , with following in several cities in Punjab & Sindh Province of Pakistan & Sufi Saints are not solely known or become notable because of Books (in these regions)there cause of fame/notability are the teachings , and direct interactions with people i.e cann't be limited to "known from a single book" , and also the book is not simple piece of poetry ,the mentioned in article book contains Poetic verses of Sufi Text as mentioned in the article. Less number of sources , are due to less use of IT resources in the area,while citations can be found in local literature , local news, Citations regarding these types of figures are less common as compared to Political or other figures. Additional citations will be added soon , I recommend adding header message for more citations and improvement but the article should not be deleted ,and for deletion message should be removed as Wikipedia Guidelines state that Sources are not required to be available online , or be in english language and the number of sources can vary!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NONENG Anasahmed24

Comment Unfortunately, such local "word of mouth" renown is not really sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. We require reliable sources, that are available for other editors to examine, to verify the content of the article. If there are other sources (printed sources that are not available online are OK as long as they are publicly available), please add them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are one non-reliable website, one blog and one book which isn't properly cited. Notability isn't established by that, and frequently articles on South Asian Muslim clerics pop up regardless of how obscure they were even in their own societies. Holding to WP:GNG should be the same here as anywhere else. This article clearly fails that guideline. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:22, 14 September 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.

Alessandro Figus

The result was 'delete'. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pettifer

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

Doubtless this will be seen as controversial, but a Reader is not, de facto, of the standard by which one has a clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC. It is also clear from that guideline that "Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." Pettifer has published a reasonably large number of papers. We are thus left to judge by by the criteria.

Looking at these in detail:
1: is to be demonstrated. If it can be then the article should remain
2: fail
3: fail
4: is to be demonstrated. If it can be then the article should remain
5: fail
6: fail
7: is to be demonstrated. If it can be then the article should remain
8: fail
9: n/a

At present I can not see Pettifer as being, currently, notable. He is certainly heading that way, and I feel the article is thus too soon. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he has a h-index of 21[34] which seems quite high (not sure how it compares to others in his field). But he doesn't seem to quite meet other notability requirements although he has picked up some references in print and blogs. There's a lot of rather unattractive WP:OVERCITE going on in the article, and the article was evidently written by Duncan Hull, one of Pettifer's collaborators[35] (see WP:COI) - so it doesn't look too promising, but those are not in themselves grounds for deletion. I'll await more expert opinion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has the subject been covered in any reliable independent sources? Frankly, I'm not seeing any assertion of notability in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. h-index of 21 marginal for this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. This is a judgement call, but looking at his google scholar profile I'm not seeing the kind of high citation counts that I'd expect from a rock star academic in this area. That, combined with his current job title, trumps the high h-index. Reasonable people may disagree here, but that's my opinion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Prof does not require rock star achievements for inclusion. People sometimes talk about the "average professor test". Xxanthippe (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Point taken, and I've now reviewed WP:Prof. Thanks for pointing that out, I had completely forgotten it existed. To rephrase my objection: I'm not seeing the broader impact in the field that I would indicate notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep based on the above, no need to be a "rock star" scientist to be in wikipedia (we've got plenty of those already) and an h-index of 20-ish is respectable. A recent news article in Nature (magazine) on Altmetrics mentions that Pettifer is the co-author of:

"the most-accessed review ever to be published in any of the seven PLOS journals (more than 53,000 times)"^[1]

I'm a collaborator on that paper, so I should declare a conflict of interest here, but I still vote for keep on the grounds of notability.Duncan.Hull (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Keep arguments seem to basically come down to "cited quite a bit". But pragmatically, the question is - "is there enough about this person that we should and can write an article". It seems his is doing rather well in his academic career, but hasn't (yet) reached public mention in a way where our article could be anything more than bare professional autobiographical facts and a publication list - not enough to come by. Martinp (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kwok, Roberta (2013). "Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark". Nature. 500 (7463): 491–3. doi:10.1038/nj7463-491a. PMID 23977678.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 19:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's not even the director of the project that our article claims as his main claim to fame (that would be, instead, Terri Attwood, who I believe is sufficiently notable for an article). And that project, Utopia Documents, is itself of very marginal notability (our article on it appears to be entirely self-sourced). The Kwok piece is a reliable source of something (that a lot of people have read one of his papers, and that he used that information to bolster a promotion case) but it doesn't actually speak to the impact of his research (why were they all reading his paper?) and the rest of the article is entirely self-sourced. The citation record is not bad, but it's a high-citation area, so I'm not sufficiently convinced that he passes WP:PROF#C1 nor any other criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 9 September 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) 03:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volrath

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

This character does not assert notability and has no references. TTN (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No mentions in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 8 September 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) 01:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharkticon

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

This is just a collection of plot and toy details without the assertion of real world importance. TTN (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article's "assertion of notability" is through being real-world marketed as a toy and a minor character in a notable series, it lacks notability as a fictional element. After deletion we can redirect to Transformers: Universe where this character has all the mention it needs. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in looking, they do have mention in reliable sources. For instance, see New York Times review and write-up in some books speaking about the toys,[36][37][38] but really not enough to merit anything but a post-deletion redirect to where they might be spoken of and sourced in context. WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:35, 10 September 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) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gowachin

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

This topic doesn't establish notability, and it is nothing more than a plot summary. TTN (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there some article into which that this can be merged? bd2412 T 22:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I suppose it could be merged into the novels. Unless someone can turn up in-depth discussions from science fiction magazines of the 1970s, I can't see any independent notability. This sort of excessive detail belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:55, 8 September 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 Ultraman Taro monsters. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mukadender

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

This is a plot summary without anything to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ultraman Taro monsters, which is woeful in quality at the moment but still the proper ultimate destination for this information. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Ultraman Taro monsters if sourcing can be provided. --DAJF (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Ultraman Taro monsters which is the proper place for the infos about this kaiju. Cavarrone 05:53, 12 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Bourcier

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. ambassadors are not inherently notable, and coverage is merely 1 line mentions confirming she was an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I stand by my previously-expressed view that ambassadors are notable by virtue of their high office. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for automatic notability. A discussion on the talk page of WP:BIO found no consensus for automatic notability of ambassadors. Please demonstrate actual in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did it find any consensus against automatic notability. It in fact found no consensus either way. As I have said, several times now, I have expressed my opinion that the position is senior enough to make its holders notable. This is an AfD. Opinions are valid. I have no obligation to demonstrate anything. If the closer agrees with me then they agree with me; if they agree with you then they agree with you. Simple. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while there is no consensus that all ambassadors are automatically notable, and outcomes here can be inconsistent, this person appears to pass notability as an office-holder and generally by way of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the refs merely have brief mentions she was an ambassador. I tried the various links above to search for more sources, no luck. So pragmatically seems we don't have - and will perhaps never have - significant coverage enough to write a meaningful article. Martinp (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with both User:Necrothesp and User:Bearian. Had she been ambassador only once I might have suggested merging into an appropriate foreign relations page. However she represented Canada as ambassador plenipotentiary to two different nations, and received significant coverage in reliable sources in both countries while doing so. She also received coverage in her non-ambassadorial posts with Foreign Affairs.[39]. Pburka (talk) 15:05, 7 September 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 Autobots. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Saber

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

This topic does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Also possible is a redirect to List of Autobots. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots, where the subject is mentioned. Gong show 15:53, 13 September 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 Tanistry. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Righdamhna

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

There needs to be a definitive outcome for this page. It requires a firm keep, or a firm redirect and merge to Tanistry, or a firm delete, mandated by consensus. That ought to stop the redirect/revert battle that is currently in train. It has useful information within it. My view is that Merge and redirect is the most appropriate outcome. Your mileage may vary. Ok, it is an unusual use of AfD, but it seems to be a pragmatic way out of this issue. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tanistry There's no need for a separate article on just one term within tanistry. If the tanistry article becomes large perhaps it could be the name for a split for the Irish version but that day is nowhere near here yet. Dmcq (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tanistry Agree with Dmcq, the term is already mentioned in the Tanistry article and there isn't much more to be said that couldn't be dealt with in the Tanistry article itself, if need be. Ririgidi (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanistry, and either fully protect the redirect, or block the article creator. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanistry and per Dmcq. Snappy (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tanistry (which will leave a redirect). AS I read the article, a person with this status was "royal" (which in Ireland meant a member of a chief's family), and was eligible to become the tanist (or crown prince). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 8 September 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) 03:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DAPPs

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

Completely unreferenced fork of grid computing. Essentially an essay hung on a neologism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually not clear what it is talking about beyond the coining of a neologism with no sources cited at all, so clearly needs to go. Maybe even Speedy? Ah, seems it was already requested speedy and then declined for some reason. Nothing really to merge, and for that matter, more like distributed computing or peer-to-peer rather than grid computing since "Apps" seems to imply mobile phone or iPad platforms, while grid was in the server/datacenter world. The user seems to have tried to create it first as Distributed applications which got redirected (as probably it should have). Also tangentially related, I had put up for proposed deletion two purely promotional articles created by this author back in 2008: MG9077 and MG9082. I did try to rescue another one. W Nowicki (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the speedy tagger. This is an unsourced spin on grid computing under a different name. If there were any referenced content I'd say merge, but there's just nothing here. - MrOllie (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any in-depth reliable sources for this topic, or any evidence at all that DAPP has been used as an acronym for "distributed application". With no sources available, this article cannot stand. --Mark viking (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Straightforward WP:OR. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:36, 8 September 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) 03:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nutso bongo

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

Made-up phrase; why a speedy was declined is anyone's guess. Another editor prodded it but I think an AfD would be better because it seems like winter is here already. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Erpert, you certainly have the right to remove the PROD (I added it) and nominate this for deletion, but your original speedy delete tag, WP:CSD#G1, was unjustified. The article is not nonsense as that term is defined by G1 ("incoherent text or gibberish") "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO; no coverage found about this term. Gong show 15:33, 7 September 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calichera

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large and exceptionally notable company. One of many bad nominations. Lots of sources cover these subjects in depth. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the sort of basic article that we should have been making ourselves for all large companies. It's our fault that we need puppets to do it. More material can be added later, as for all WP articles. . 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banmédica

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very large Chilean company with plenty of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 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) 01:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Drummed

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

This is not quite CSD territory, but the references are awfully thin. The first looks okay, but is all about the band without mentioning the subject of this article. The rest of the references are bare mentions of the band in low quality sources. Searching for more references gives similarly sparse results. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate sufficient coverage for this person to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 08:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Taipei Times story looks substantial and the bands he's been in have done some world touring, but where is the coverage of this individual? If there were article on the bands he's played in maybe it could be merged. Maybe another editor can find better sourcing? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 7 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAP S.A.

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oodles of sources cover this company very substantially. This is a major miner. not sure what the issue is. Seems to be one of many ill conceived deletion nominations. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minera S.A.

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies. This article has no sources establishing notability and I could find no substantial coverage establishing notability. I recognize that language could be an issue in establishing notability, so if this company is regionally, perhaps someone can find an independent reliable source. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Chilean conglomerate with over a $1 billion in annual sales? Manifestly notable and plenty of coverage no doubt available to expand article content from additional sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the opening sentence of the article I moved it to Minera Valparaiso. Not sure where the other overly generic (Miner Inc?) name came from. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 7 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wann

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

BLP with only primary sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These references are just primary sources of course and primary sources are not enough to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin -- you are of course correct that primary sources are not sufficient. But have you looked at the non-primary sources? We have to look beyond the article, for what sources exist, in !voting at AfD. As wp:AFD states: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding quite a bit of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG-satisfying sources exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I added a couple of newspaper references to the article yesterday. However looking at these again, as well as those in the link provided by Candleabracadabra above, I do not feel that there is sufficient rising above routine listings to the point of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a look at the many newspaper references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the items in the Google link are a mix of PR items and event announcements - they fall short of being substantial coverage. I had gone back the article today intending to clean it up (as the text has the tone of a performer's press-pack); that was when my view became that it was insufficient for WP:ENTERTAINER. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While those are certainly there, aren't you also seeing articles such as this NY Times article and this article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but - as is also true of the two articles I referenced into the article itself - the subject gets mentioned in the context of a wider article (often prefixed "a" rather than "the"), rather than being the subject of the article himself. There could be an argument that an accumulation of passing mentions adds up, but I think that needs to be as support for at least one piece which plainly does demonstrate notability through full focus on the subject. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 8 September 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 Battle Angel Alita: Last Order. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Type-V mutant

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

No claim to notability, no significant third party coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorball Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic certainly deserves a mention in the main Battle Angel Alita: Last Order article as an important part of the plot. Otherwise, with no significant coverage from secondary sources, this fails WP:GNG and shouldn't be a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a full history export of this article to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Type-V_mutant Dream Focus 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the best place for it anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Angel Alita: Last Order per above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:04, 8 September 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 Arthur Loves Plastic discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sperm Warfare

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

No notable ep. It lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Falls short of WP:NALBUMS. Is mentioned in passing in the first two of the references. The third is dead and was from 2004 (unlikely to be a review of a 1995 ep). The other two are just internet archive and a listing. No independent reliable sources give the ep any depth of coverage. The external links are just linkspam. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arthur Loves Plastic discography which is currently just a list of titles with a distinct lack of detail. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 7 September 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 National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka Digital Repository

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

Unsourced article on minor database. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka - it won't take long. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 7 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics

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

Fails Notability as per WP:ORG and copy vio of www.aopt.org Flat Out let's discuss it 00:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable society. It exists, it publishes a journal, it has meetings, but I could find no evidence that its existence has been taken note of by independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:ORG. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They also publish their own journal, Journal of Ocular Pharmacology and Therapeutics. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) can also be used to provide notability. The copyvio needs to be fixed. Some of the websites in the external links to mention this association. I'll try to add references and other improvements to this article. Star6763 (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
mild Keep - It has minor mention from other organizations, some of those are included from organizations in external links. There is mention, but not enough information from those mentions to add to article. However, opinion on this not strong. Star6763 (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 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) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Fulcher

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

Web of Science lists 19 articles for "Fulcher E", that have been cited 172 times for an h-index of 7, which is rather far from meeting WP:ACADEMIC (even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not). No evidence that subject meets any other criteria for inclusion. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- the cited information is incorrect/incomplete, & i am left wondering why the nominator (who had previously *co-prodded the same article) is so insistent on this article's removal?

see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=eamon+fulcher

and: https://www.google.com/search?q=Eamon+Fulcher&num=100&newwindow=1&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&hl=en&prmdo=1&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ei=pQ8fUtGuLbO72QXF94GICg&ved=0CAwQ_AUoBg

that seems a like a lot more than 19 articles "(even assuming all these articles are his, which they are not)" to me. also; i'd like clarification on what the nominator meant by that comment, please?

finally, i will note that the relevant wp guideline clearly states that h-index ratings ARE NOT decisive criteria, are not entirely accurate or reliable, & should only be used as a "rough guide" in forming any opinions re: academic notability.

aside from the papers, the subject has authored & co-authored multiple textbooks in his field, widely used in course work.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that said, i do agree that the article would benefit from a good, thorough revising.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before responding to this, I'd like Lx121 to try and give WP:AGF a good read. Thanks! Now to the issue at hand. Not all 19 articles listed in WoS are from this E. Fulcher, I don't see what the problem is with that. And indeed, nobody contests that this person has published. What is asserted is that neither the citation rates nor the h-index indicate that his works have made any significant impact, which is what WP:ACADEMIC is about. Yes, a low h-index does not prove that the person is not notable, but that is something that is impossible to prove anyway (there always is a possibility that somewhere there is a source showing notability). All that I am saying is the opposite, that I do not find evidence of notability (and a high h-index would prove notability). Publishing (articles or books) is what academics do, in and of itself that doesn't make them notable. What we need is proof of notability (as evidenced by reliable sources) and I don't see that. --Randykitty (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hello, & i am sorry, but it seems to me that you are presenting inaccurate/misleading information in arguing for the deletion, & then pushing for it rather hard. to me, that makes it hard to agf.

as regards h-index, i quote you this section from wp:academic:

"Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others."

as regards notability, i invite you to examine the links i have provided above.

when the subject has written basic course textbooks, which are WIDELY used, has contributed material to other textbooks, is cited, thanked, etc. in yet other textbooks, AND has the number of papers & the "cite scores", for what are highly specialized topics, as shown @ google scholar, i think that person meets the "minimum requirement" for academic notability.

any decent directory of people working in c-b psych would include an entry for him as a top-level expert. google his name, & he comes out as the top & most-frequently mentioned individual; google his name with "phd" attached & he's the ONLY person who comes up. i'm not really clear on what more is needed, to meet with your approval?

Lx 121 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and try to understand what I wrote before casting doubt on my motivations. A high h-index is a very good indication of notability. A low h-index does not prove absence of notability, but it certainly isn't proof of notability either. So when mentioning a low h-index, all I intend to say with that is that I don't find an indication for notability in the h-index. When I cite the low citation counts, that doesn't prove absence of notability either, but it does show that this person is not notable because he's highly cited either (WP:PROF#1). Cognitive psychology and brain sciences are a high-citation density field, by the way, so we'd expect a lot more citations than for, say, a mathematician. I have no idea why you think that googling somebody's name and that person then coming out on top means anything (I have a rather unique name myself and if you google it, I come out on top. So what?) The GS citation counts are a bit higher than those obtained in WoS (as expected, because GS is much more inclusive than WoS), but nothing spectacular either. They are insufficient to establish notability. The only thing I see that possible could establish notability would be the text books. However, just the bare fact that he wrote these books is not enough. You have written several times now that they are "widely used". I'm perfectly willing to believe that, if there are reliable, secondary sources that show this. I, too, wrote a textbook with some colleagues. About 400 copies were sold. Big deal. Significantly more is needed for notability to be established. So before citing more from WP:PROF, try to understand what it says first. --Randykitty (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per clear exposition of Randy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular the citation counts do not make a convincing case for criterion C1 and the other criteria as well do not seem to be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmi Albrechtsen

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

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

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

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

Purely promotional biography about a journalist and a book she's written, with nothing to indicate the notability of the subject. The article in Time Newsfeed has nothing to do with Sharmi Albrechtsen, the article in The Copenhagen Post is about someone else and only mentions Sharmi Albrechtsen briefly and the links to Oprah do not in any way make Sharmi Albrechtsen notable. The impression I get when reading the article is that the subject of it wanted an article about herself on Wikipedia and had someone upload it for her. With one of the reasons for that being that the style of this article is much more polished and grammatically correct than other contributions from the creator of the article (such as this edit summary from Zebra Finch: I have been bred many times of zebra finch, normally its can give good breed from 6 months of their age), a difference in style and language skills that makes me doubt that the creator wrote it... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sharmi has an entire page dedicated to all the coverage she has received: Sharmi in the Media. This should be enough for her to be considered notable. Mimalman freeway (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Mimalman freeway (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep For a blogger and self-published author (Lulu) she has unusual level of international coverage for her book/blog on Danes and happiness, on Oprah's Life Class[40], BBC[41], German television network ARTE [42], South Korea's OhMyNews [43], House Hunters International (HGTV)[44], Danish lifestyle magazine Mad&Bolig[45]. I can't find any book reviews and none of the pieces are really about Sharmi, except OhMyNews. So there are good and bad here, but I am willing to give her a chance, based on GNG multiple reliable sources. If in 5 or 10 years nothing hew has happened it would be easier delete but don't see the rush to delete yet. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too many primary sources are on the article with too few secondary sources, so this article needs more support. A few more secondary sources besides OhMyNews above that haven't surfaced yet:

1. http://embrace-yourself.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Woman_you_deserve_to_be_happy.291202150.pdf

2. http://dispatch.dis.dk/story/danes-rejoice-life%E2%80%99s-simple-pleasures

3. New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world/europe/danes-rethink-a-welfare-state-ample-to-a-fault.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

4. http://www.indiaeveryday.in/Video/Search.aspx?q=sharmi Baerdorf (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — Baerdorf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of those links establish any notability what so ever for Sharmi Albrechtsen. The NYT article is about happy Danes in general and doesn't even mention Sharmi Albrechtsen, she's mentioned only in passing in one of the other links and is just one of many names mentioned as references in another. And the Indiaeveryday-link is a just long list of videos containing the name "Sharmi" in the title, mostly music videos with an artist by that name. Baerdorf is a brand new SPA account, obviously created specifically for this AfD-discussion, so I would like to point out that this AfD is not about getting as many "keep" votes as possible (that is it is not a majority vote) but about seeing if the subject of the article, Sharmi Albrechtsen, is notable enough to have an article here (see WP:Notability). Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we've already seen two brand new SPA accounts comment/vote on this AfD I want to point out that users who have a conflict of interest (for example being or representing the subject of the article) should state so in their comments. Also please note this quote from Wikipedia:AfD: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Rhomberg

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

No sources or references to satisfy WP:GNG & Fails WP:PORNBIO as not won a "well-known and significant industry award" or any award at all. Finnegas (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 20. Snotbot t • c » 11:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has 4 links to external DBs and exists in 3 other languages. Why should the English-speaking world not know about this person? Considering WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO: the Josephine Mutzenbacher movie is a cult porn. YellowOnline (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the 4 links to external DBs do not establish notability. None of the other articles have any other sources. Can you provide references to support your claim that "the Josephine Mutzenbacher movie is a cult porn". Finnegas (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles in any language cite reliable sources. I tagged the article as unsourced because there is nothing to support the article's biographical content. Links to film databases don't establish notability. Yes, I've heard of Sensational Janine, but the significance of starring in a "cult" porn film needs acknowledgement by reliable sources. A Google News search yields one passing mention of Rhomberg in the film. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I've updated the article in question with some of the references cited below and some others. Guy1890 (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Satisfies criteria 2 of PORNBIO with her starring role in Sensational Janine. If you look at the GBooks hits for Sensational Janine [46], the fourth link quotes, "Sensational Janine has been considered by a number of adult film reviewers as one of the best foreign adult films released in the... (United States)". Jim Holliday regards it as an "all time foreign favorite".[47] The Film Journal regards it "one of the most successful x-rated foreign films ever to cross the Atlantic".[48]. I can only imagine what the Austrian and German sources say since I am unable to research them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your support for this article and for looking through Google Books. YellowOnline (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fundamentally unsourced BLP, without prejudice to recreation as a redirect if a film article is written or as an article if reliably sourced biographical information can be found. This article perpetuates the unsourced and unreferenced association of the porn performer with a clearly identifiable person of the same name, and suppression is needed before that claim is spread across the web! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The character is not clearly identifiable, likely fictional, and if it was based on a real person, that person is likely dead. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite definitely not the identifiable living person I referred a bit vaguely to; note the content I removed from the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's an ongoing discussion about this article here as well. Guy1890 (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After thinking about it some more, it appears that this (former?) actress satisfies the "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" of PORNBIO for her lead role in "porn classic" Josefine Mutzenbacher – Wie sie wirklich war (or Sensational Janine), which was apparently "one of the most successful foreign (European) x-rated films". I also note that the above BLP concern was not acted upon further by anyone. Being associated with adult films isn't necessarily a negative thing to everyone, and I'm not even sure that this actress used her real name in any of her adult film career. This article does need more citations though. Guy1890 (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This argument, advanced earlier, waters down the PORNBIO #2 standard far too much. No sources describe the film in terms that approach "iconic," "groundbreaking," or "blockbuster." The sources cited by Morbidthoughts don't go much beyond establishing the film as notable under the GNG. "Considered by a number of reviewers as one of the best," for example, hardly equates to "iconic." We cannot ignore the fact that this article has no reliable sources for its biographical content; the two porn databases used as references do not satisfy RS requirements; the book/magazine citations support statements regarding the film, not the performer. And the just-advanced argument that associating an identifiable living person with a porn performer, without a shred of supporting evidence, isn't a BLP violation because "it isn't necessarily a negative thing to everyone" demonstrates only the proponent's utter lack of understanding of essential BLP policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "No sources describe the film in terms that approach 'iconic,' 'groundbreaking,' or 'blockbuster'"...only that the film was "one of the most successful foreign (European) x-rated films", which is basically the same, exact thing.
- "the two porn databases used as references do not satisfy RS requirements"...which is an opinion, not a fact at all.
- "And the just-advanced argument that associating an dentifiable living person with a porn performer, without a shred of supporting evidence". As stated before, there's no evidence that this actress used her real name during her film career. Guy1890 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This does seem to meet WP:PORNBIO #2 as indicated by this machine translated text of this original which includes: "Barely repealed the ban on pornography for adults in the Federal Republic of Germany in 1975, hiked many filmmakers in the new genre of porn film about and did pioneering work in there. The quality of the films was at that time still quite high, and thanks to the existing budget and a technically sound approach, could produce porn, traded up today around the world as a classic. Finally came the gentry usually from the film industry and brought with them for this reason some decades of experience. Already in the first years were not only short films, known as loops, produced, but also porn feature film length. It was set free the imagination, concerning the content and also the title of the film. Just the title of old movies were like to cast off and used in many short films. But there were already existing stories and movies where one content served. It was to the fabric around the figure of the "Sanitätsgefreiten"Neumann, on the other hand, it was the figure of the literary classics of porn "Josefine Mutzenbacher" which was already some years before, just like the "Sanitätsgefreite Neumann" in a sex film release in theaters. This substance, which tells of a Viennese whore, and which caused much sensation and censorship in book form, has offered wonderful to, to be filmed as a pornographic Variant.
The first "Josefine Mutzenbacher"-the experienced Director Hans Billian turned porn film, which today is seen as one of the best porn of all time, in 1976. Starring at that time embodied the Wienerin Patricia Rhomberg, which perfectly fit into this role because their proper dialect."

This describes Patricia Rhomberg as the lead star in this film that "... hiked many filmmakers in the new genre of porn film about and did pioneering work in there." which meets PORNBIO's "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography;" Technical 13 (talk) 15:46, 17 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ore Cup

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

I question whether there is a genuine rivalry here. Aside from the fact that many of the links in the reference section are dead, those that are still live talk of a "rivalry" established before the teams have even played each other. This sounds to me like an attempt to hype up the match and the league in general rather than a genuine rivalry. Additionally, they have only been playing each other for four seasons (and the article itself concedes it is considered a "minor rivalry"). I would think a much longer tradition of matches needs to be established before it can be said there is a genuine rivalry which passes WP:GNG and needs its own article. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence this is a notable sporting rivalry/competition. Giant Snowman 09:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose request early close via the Snowball Clause - Passes the requirements for WP:GNG. The author is inventing his own guidelines and weasel words; how long exactly does a rivalry have to exist to pass Fenix's "long tradition" weasel word clause? Where can I find an official "long tradition" guideline? Who decides how 'genuine' a rivalry is if not the reliable sources? These weasel words are an attempt to justify why we should ignore GNG. While it could use a re-write and the addition of sources, it is clearly notable as per GNG. That's all that matters. I'd also like to point out the author failed to follow WP:BEFORE and has not bothered to discuss the topic on the talk page for any of the half-dozen related articles he nominated en-mass today. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chinwag) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 10:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the notion of a long tradition is not attempting to circumvent GNG, in fact it is being used precisely to show that as there have only been a handful of games and there is no indication of anything notable beyond the fact that the games have been played. No significant chain of notable incidents seem to be connected with this match. Perhaps in time a genuine rivalry will develop, but it is difficult to show fulfillment of GNG after only a couple of seasons. Please also heed your own advice re weasel words. Phrases like "clearly notable" without showing how are disengenuous. Fenix down (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be notable as its covered specifically by multiple news articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the individual matches are covered by sources, but the cup itself is unofficial and so is non-notable. There is nothing in the sources however, which discusses the rivalry itself in any detail, which is what this article is about. All the sources noted do is present a WP:SYNTH of a series of matches from which a "rivalry" is derived. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For same reasons as Shiftchange. The lack of official status doesn't make it non-notable.Hughesdarren (talk) 07:17, 15 September 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) 03:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfield EP

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

Non-notable EP: "Only 25 copies were released". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Yeah, the "only 25 copies were released" line really sets off warning bells. I admit I didn't even bother to try doing a google search after reading that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:06, 8 September 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 All the Stars and Boulevards. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll Disappear

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

Non-notable single Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page would probably work as a Redirect to All the Stars and Boulevards. There is not-enough secondary sources to indicate this song can have its own Wikipedia article, unless me and Walter Görlitz are missing something here. I'd also like to make a mention of the original research about the cover included in this article. 和DITOR E tails 22:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All the Stars and Boulevards. Plausible search term as a single by a notable act, but this song does not appear to warrant an independent article as I could not find significant coverage for it in reliable sources. Gong show 15:50, 13 September 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 Can't Love, Can't Hurt. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Love, Can't Hurt EP

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

non-notable single Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So why not merge it to the album? --Michig (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Augustana (band)#Discography, or Can't Love, Can't Hurt (the album of the same name), whichever is more appropriate. The nomination is technically invalid, as this isn't a single; it's an EP, as even the name tells you. A Google search for the EP turns up Wordpress sites and Blogspot sites, and that's as reliable as they get. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 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 Ex-gay movement. Ged UK 12:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OneByOne

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

Non-notable organization. No sources specifically about the organization found. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Ex-gay movement, from where it was originally split off, IIRC. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ex-gay movement, per JClemens.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 7 September 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 Autodesk Media and Entertainment. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFF (software)

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

Wikipedia is not a change log. That's what this article is. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I suspected this to be spam but have discovered that:
1. The software has been noted (and therefore may be notable).[49][50][51][52]
2. Typically, this wasn't originally Autodesk software, but is reported to have been originally created by Discreet Logic,[53] which may help in further searches for references.

-- Trevj (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All true; all true. But even so, do you think we can salvage anything of this mess of an article? I believe not. IMHO, we are probably going to have to re-write the whole thing from the very first letter. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points. Clearly the table of prices and question marks with no citations is not appropriate, but the general history seems notable. Some coverage of this needs to be in Wikipedia, and just deleting with no trace seems a slight step backward. But fixing this mess would be time consuming. One idea would be to beef up the Autodesk Media and Entertainment#Creative Finishing Products section. (Although section headings need need work too, to be down-cased after the first word, sigh.) So how about to merge IFF (software), Autodesk Smoke, and Inferno (software) into that section. All three of those articles are badly sourced and not very wikified. Ideally the chronology would be presented in prose, in simple past tense (never using language like "now" or "currently") with citations. If that section gets too long, it could always be spun back out into one or more articles. The incoming links (such as {{Compositing Software}} need work too. W Nowicki (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I agree with the merge. I understand in AfD, it's always on the table and I have no prejudice against keeping what's worth keeping; indeed Wikipedia encourages documenting significant changes over time. And, you seem to have just found the suitable target too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 16:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Autodesk - insufficient third party coverage of product for stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I actually agree with W Nowick's idea. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still prefer to merge into Autodesk Media and Entertainment and keep that as a separate article. The company Discreet Logic has a rich history before it was acquired that needs to be told (it even went public, so should have sources in SEC documents etc.). The parent Autodesk should cover enough already, such as the AutoCAD era and focus on the California operations which are somewhat independent technically if not financially. Trying to keep an article up to date on exact releases or each product seems futile; one can always go to the company pages and get the latest. I think that was the original motivation for this AfD: the litany of release details seems to obscure the forest for the trees, to twist a metaphor. I actually did one step to updating the AM&E article yesterday, but could use help if that is consensus, or have patience and I can find time in the next few days. Some of the info was inconsistent or out of date, and urls dead etc. W Nowicki (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nowicki. The Technical Oscar mentioned in the IFF article strongly implies notability for something, but the articles are currently in such bad shape that a merge would be an improvement. If the Autodesk article eventually becomes too long, subtopics can be split out into separate articles per Wikipedia:Summary style, but we're not there yet and there needs to be a better organization for those subtopics than we now have. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to other article and decide then whether this content should be kept. Some is sourced - if it is important then more could be. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced except for two Autodesk announcements and one PRNewswire report of a press release by Autodesk. If it is unsourced, it isn't notable or verifiable. In that case, it doesn't belong anywhere—if it were merged into Autodesk Media and Entertainment, then it would be appropriate to remove it as unsourced. Autodesk Media and Entertainment is mostly sourced to company announcements anyway. - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI've been looking at the sources for science technology academy awards, but the online material does not go back this far for this particular one. Judging by their later material, there seem to be 5 or 6 awards each year. It seems reasonable to me that there might be that many notable products & developments, but I haven;t checked for articles on all of them. I think that it either proves notability as a major national award or goers a long way to showing it. However, the existing information in the article is inappropriate--we do include informations of the major versions of major products, but not to this degree of detail. I'd keep it separate; there is enough information, but I'd summarize the data. (btw, this is a case where some indication of pricing is relevant to understanding the nature of the product.) DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand: surely if the award claim is unsourced, it shouldn't be considered except as a hint for WP:BEFORE. If we can't find a source, then we should ignore it, shouldn't we? - Pointillist (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DGG. I am very surprised. Your assessment is correct; but I can certainly not connect the dots from "existing information in the article is inappropriate" to "Keep". Indeed, what constitutes an article but its contents? And contents in this case are yet to claim the name of the "article" before getting down to "notable article"? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it means the existing information can be easily edited so it becomes appropriate, and therefore we can keep it and edit. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - I've now sourced the Academy Scientific and Technical Award. The award itself might not be a big deal: AMPAS handed out 13 others in 1998 but at least it provides an independent source to say that these products ever existed. So let's re-write and keep the article, merging in all the content from Inferno (software) (which can become a redirect) and Autodesk Media and Entertainment#Creative finishing. The release list is 0% sourced and IMO should be terminated with extreme prejudice (per Wikipedia:NOTCHANGELOG)—the only excuse for such tables is the significant changes column and that's almost entirely empty in this case. If there's a source for the typical cost it can go into the body of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to "Autodesk Media and Entertainment" seems to be appropriate in this case. Bcharles (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McNair

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Duncan McNair

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

BLP, unreferenced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines either as a lawyer or as an author. Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His books are very similar to the Timewaster letters which all have individual pages in wikipedia as well as an author page. I'm new to Wikipedia let me know if there is anything important lacking that I have omitted and need to add. Thanks - IanBrumpton (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Ian, nothing personal - I hadn't realised you were so new - just saw an unreferenced BLP. I see the article has been updated slightly - personally, I would say that some of the claims still need references but will happily withdraw this nomination if sources are found and notability proven. Horatio Snickers (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cleaned up the page some, and added some refs (didn't bother with inline cites yet). Able to find 4 solid refs, 2 are offline but the Evening Post is in-depth about the author. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help tidying up the page! IanBrumpton (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "King of Spoofs" is a really good piece. Off-line but access at Resource Request. Three reviews is minimal for WP:AUTHOR #3 but I think it's enough in this case. The other sources also add to WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable lawyer; the books are barely worth a mention: The Morello Letters', is in only 35 libraries; the follow-up vol, in only 2. If that's the total holdings despite the reviews, the book are not enough for notability for anyone. However, the legal work is, and it is well sourced. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 13 September 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) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lash

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

There made be something here worth saving, but unless better sources are found, this looks like pure promotion. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No hits in Google Books beyond a 1993 advertisement in a magazine. There is quite a bit of news archive coverage of a robbery on his shop in 2000 in which he was shot and an employee was killed, but that is WP:SINGLEEVENT at best, certainly not enough in itself to make him notable. Several namechecks where he created jewels for celebrities but nothing really substantial about him himself. So has to be a reluctant delete. Mabalu (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaded (Band)

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

This is quite clearly a hoax, but seemingly not enough so to constitute obvious vandalism. None of the info -- including the bit about the lead singer's alleged suicide, which you'd think would get a lot of press for a band this allegedly popular -- is verifiable. Because it didn't obviously look like vandalism at first glance, I used A7 instead of G3, and this was declined because the article incorrectly states that they've sold ten million records. T C N7JM 07:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax; no information found for the alleged 7.2 million-selling album "No Holds Barred", nor anything else about this band. Gong show 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete as hoax. GregJackP Boomer! 15:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete whether G3 or A7 - it doesn't matter. The unsourced claim of suicide also warrants a BLP PROD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:54, 9 September 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) 03:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Gask

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

No evidence of notability. Backing singer for a notable pop group does not warrant an individual article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks NN to me. I note that only other two members of Showaddywaddy have their own articles, and they appear to the current frontmen. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not want you to delete this page. It is the only article I created. Please do not delete it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.100.148 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 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) 03:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Dusty Nathan

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

Non-noteworthy BLP of a columnist/sportswriter. Prod was removed as "might be notable," but sources about the columnist are not forthcoming. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources that discuss Dusty Nathan in depth. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:55, 7 September 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) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BritBangla

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

This doesn't meet GNG. Sources only give passing mention and some are non-RS. This has already been deleted twice now. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah I have to agree with the nom, my Google searches didn't turn up anything new not already in the article. The sources show the organization exists, but they don't say anything about the organization, they are not about the organization. It's also troubling that a 10 year old organization has this small a footprint, even granted it's a small community it represents, 10 years is a long time to do things to get into the press (for a notable org). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 7 September 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Remy

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

Wikipedia entry focuses on an individual who does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia given that it is an individual defendant in a local murder trial with no other notable attributes. Allowing an entry on this individual to exist would amount to allowing a Wikipedia page for every criminal defendant charged with a murder. TerenceAmbrosius (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC) — TerenceAmbrosius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - per nom. --Malerooster (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in reliable sources, including the Boston Globe, Seattle Times [54], Bangor Daily News [55], RDS [56], ABC News [57], CBS News [58], USA Today [59], and LA Times [60] for three separate incidents over the course of eight years. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject, as the son of a notable baseball broadcaster and player, gets more media attention than might be given to another criminal defendant. Coverage of the steroids story along with the murder charge takes this out of single-event territory. Agree with Hirolovesswords on WP:GNG. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. The articles are all written about the fact the son of a notable person was charged, not about the subject itself. Caffeyw (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The murder would have been reported, even if the accused did not have a well-known father. Same for the Red Sox firing two guys who told the media they used steroids; that's enough for a news story. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with nom. on notability. All articles seem to be about the father and the fact his son is charged, not about the actual son itself. A mention on the father's page would make more sense. Caffeyw (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, user Hirolovesswords are right about his assessment.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the only reason why we have an article is because of his famous father. Not notable by himself. 98.242.139.162 (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously, what the holy hell is wrong with some people around here, there is no legitimate argument that can be made for keeping this. This is textbook WP:BLP1E, the only reason it is seeing a slight uptick from a routine news story about a murder is due to the alleged perpetrator's famous father. Notability is not inherited, so take that, the BLP1E, the fact that this person fails the 2 criteria (renowned victim or unusual motivation/method of killing) for perpetrators found at WP:CRIME. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes BLP1E because multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event (2005 assault arrest, 2009 firing, and 2013 murder case) and given the high-profile murder charge he is not likely to remain a low-profile individual. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he is involved in more than a single "event," a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use and a 2005 assault would similarly not have been considered "newsworthy" had it not been for Remy's famous father. Additionally, this is WP:BLP1E because the individual is likely to remain a low-profile individual as there is a high likelihood that there will be no coverage following a potential trial. Furthermore, the only individual arguing that the article be kept is Hirolovesswords, who authored the original article. In closing, the entry also violates WP:BLPCRIME in that the entire article focuses on an individual accused of a crime without a conviction. Were it not for a criminal accusation, there would be no substance to the article. It should be deleted, and at most be merged as a few lines within his father's Wikipedia entry.Mhoward184 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC) — Mhoward184 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What you characterize as "a firing from a job as a security guard for drug use" is more noteworthy because (a) the employer was a major-league baseball team, (b) the fired employees admitted to steroid use, (c) the fired employees had personal contact with team players. PEDs in baseball is a huge story, and this would have been covered even without the connection to Jerry Remy. Firing + murder charge overcomes WP:BLP1E. ReverendWayne (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails a mixture of and WP:BLP1E WP is not a catalogue for every crime. LGA _talk^edits 20:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. Not a BLP1E as multiple reliable sources cover the person in the context of more than a single event, as explained above. Cavarrone 12:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination) for precedent for these sorts of cases. A string of legal altercations does not make a person notable, when said notability is only derived from a famous relative. Absent the relationship to Jerry Remy, this person would not be covered to the extent that he has. Al Gore III is just a redirect for precisely this reason, so at most here, an argument can be made for a small sub-section of Jerry's bio to discuss the son, with a redirect of 'Jared Remy' to that sub-section.
That's not how it works "what"? If you are referring to WP:BLP1E this is how it works. About the rest, I have no prejudice against a merging with his father's article, but this could be discussed in the proper venue once the AfD will be closed. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Closing admin, please read through the Al Gore III deletion history linked above, as it should serve as a guide for this case, IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subject which required 8 nominations to be deleted and whose major claim of notability was "He is known for being mentioned in an emotional vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech by his father during the 1992 Democratic National Convention" could be hardly serve as a guide for this case. Every case is different, and this is quite different, IMHO. Cavarrone 06:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comments of Hiro and the fact that this does not fall under BLP1E due to the fact that there is coverage on multiple events pertaining to this individual (assault (another), steroid use (another), murder). Technical 13 (talk) 15:18, 17 September 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) 03:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dak-Kon

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

Apologies Dak-Konnies, just another fan-con. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Shirt58 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Facebook and personal web pages do not constitute reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Google searches turn up nothing. Maybe there's a list this could be merged into? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:10, 8 September 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Wetterauer

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

Little or no rationale for notability. Dearth of acceptable sources. Article's creator used this as a launching platform for inserting images by the artist into multiple articles. JNW (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I cannot understand JNW's claim about "little or no rationale for notability", because WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR is clearly met: Herbert Wetterauer has published several books and his artwork was featured in a number of exhibitions.--FoxyOrange (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see that any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST/WP:AUTHOR are met. There's no indication that The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; or that The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Perhaps on the last criteria, Art-Collection Westermann, City-Gallery of Rastatt or One-Man-Show at the State Art Museum Baden-Baden offer some possibility, but neither is sourced, and there's little indication that either venue is significant--is either represented by a separate article on Wikipedia? The other galleries appear to be commercial or otherwise have no claim to notability. Similarly, merely publishing books establishes nothing, other than having published books. JNW (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - publishing books and exhibiting art does not prove an artist is widely known/important, contrary to what FoxyOrange suggests. However, the German Wikipedia article seems to have a vague list of magazine/newspaper coverage going back 30 years. If full details could be established about some of this coverage, Wetterauer would probably meet WP:GNG (and WP:ARTIST). Sionk (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that the English and German Wikipedia Articles both have almost no valid sources, most sources are other Wikis. The German article quotes the English one as a source for his notability. --Gutental (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough valid sources among "External links" and "Publications", not only other Wikis. --Hirt des Seyns (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links are weak, mostly controlled by the artist himself, plus the German Wikipedia article that doesn't belong there since it can already be found on the left side. His publications don't impress me either. His latest book doesn't even have a publisher. What we need is publications ABOUT Wetterauer. --Gutental (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the German Wikipedia, you will find a list of print-articles ABOUT Wetterauer (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Wetterauer#Rezeption), even you will find a photography of one of this articels here: http://wetterauer-stromness.bildkunstnet.de/ --->"Pressestimmen".
Online-articel about: http://www.boulevard-baden.de/lokales/nachrichten/2011/03/15/lesung-mit-herbert-wetterauer-335740/ or http://www.raumk.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1005&Itemid=54 or http://www.ka-news.de/entertainment/gewinnspiel/Gewinnspiel-Buch-Literatur-Flucht-vor-der-Vergangenheit-Fuenfmal-Stromness-von-Herbert-Wetterauer;art155,428698 .Hirt des Seyns (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the local online press, reporting about a local artist who published his first novel. As usual, they were given a few books to raffle off. Not impressive either, and it doesn't justify placing his artwork in articles of general interest like Pinselzeichnung or Zeichnung (Kunst), alongside the works of Leonardo da Vinci and Gustav Klimt. The large number of merely local media that is listed under "Rezeption" in the German article doesn't make points. I wouldn't say that "Boulevard Baden" creates relevance. --Gutental (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wetterauer's third novel ("death.com") has appeared just now in a print-issue here: http://www.infoverlag.de/Neuerscheinungen.php

Hirt des Seyns (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'll nail my colours to the mast. There's no compelling evidence that Wetterauer meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. There are plenty of artist articles on Wikipedia that are basically unsourced CV's, we don't need another one. The list of coverage on the German Wikipedia article gives no clue as to what it is - quite probably it will be announcements and/or brief mentions in the context of group exhibitions. Until someone explains otherwise, we simply don't know. WP:NAUTHOR might be met, but there's no proof of this at the moment. For example I found this review of his first novel but I can't find anything else substantial that isn't a book sales site. The English Wikipedia article would need to be completely re-written if he turns out to be a notable author. Sionk (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seem to be enough reliable sources (albeit not in English) to support the notability of this individual. Technical 13 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is ample sourcing to show that the subject is an active artist and author, the information we have does not show independent evidence of notability. Really, apart from the local stories, and promotional materials, there's not much there. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cotabato City bombing

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

The article is only a few sentences and past its creation time with no expansion. This is WP:NOTNEWS and the content can either go on List of terrorist incidents, January-June, 2013 or on some page of the insurgency in the Philippines.

Related concurrent nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 2013 Beirut bombing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Krong Pinang bombing

Lihaas (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to demonstrate or make any claim that it will have any lasting significance, it therefore fails the inclusion policy. It received news coverage because it was a news story. LGA _talk^edits 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. NOTNEWS exists because local papers will write about boring and unimportant local events just because they need to fill their pages with something. This story was covered by essentially every major news outlet in the entire world. Xrt6L (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Major events, tons of coverage in reliable sources. Xrt6L (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Im with xrt6l on this one. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, while the best option would be merging it into an article about the insurgency in the Philippines. Mass murders and terrorist acts aren't that sort of trivial/local news events which fall under NOTNEWS. Cavarrone 06:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have an enormous page about this car bomb in the US that didn't even go off. Though I agree with the sentiment that if more becomes known (in a definitive way) about the context for this bomb, it may be reasonable to incorporate this into a larger article. groupuscule (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is more than just a routine event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, not AFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Uttar Pradesh/Agra

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

Already have article in mainspace naveenpf (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close, not AFD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Wiki Loves Monuments/Tamil Nadu

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

already have page in mainspace naveenpf (talk) 05:44, 7 September 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) 01:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Containment Methodology

AfDs for this article:

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

This appears to be a new product that doesn't have the notability required to remain here. Most search results are from the company itself, their press releases, or advertising for the system. Dismas|^(talk) 05:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there may have been some misunderstanding as to what CCM is... It is not a 'product' but a system or set of methodologies that can be applied to reduce liability using existing workplace products, procedures and programs. It is not new and has been used since 2008 as outlined in the case reviews in the Miracles Report - Australian and Local Government and Corporate and Private service have benefited from the methodology. The CCM system is no different to that of a system such as SixSimga, but unlike Sigma, it is not a system to buy but a methodology that forms part of recommendations for an initiative for reducing Employer risk and psychological Injury. Issadora1 (talk) 06:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. It's unlikely that a "methodology", or "set of methodologies", or "system", whichever it is, ever could be notable. Maproom (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are many systems and methods that wikipedia articles are available for and once again I use Six sigma as an example, I do not necessarily agree that six sigma is notable but that is subject to the interpretation of the user. I don't understand the difference, could you please explain so I do not write further contributions that may not be suitable. Issadora1 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scores a massive 287 (two hundred eighty seven) Google hits. Notable? Don't think so. The Banner talk 22:22, 15 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Almhanna

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

A promotional article on a physician who meets neither the GNG nor WP:PROF. Possibly even speedy delete, since the biographical part of the article is in large part a very close paraphrase of his bio at Moffit Cancer Center here, and this is an entirely promotional article that would need extensive rewriting beyond normal editing, even if he were notable. But he doesn't meet the GNG--there are no references providing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. He doesn't meet WP:PROF: the publication record shows only 10 papers with citation counts of 10 or more, which is trivial in a heavily cited field like oncology. He is not a full professor, or even an associate professor. He has not been on the editorial board of any journal, and just reviewing papers for a journal is trivial. He is an officer in no national professional association, he is an elected fellow of no professional society,just an ordinary member. His awards are trivial awards within his own state, not the national level awards that show notability

And the author of this article appears to be an entirely promotional editor writing articles about physicians at the Moffit Cancer Center, see WP:Articles for Deletion/ - . DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom's clear reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the several reasons given in the nomination,~~especially the apparent COI of this editor.~~ Lesion (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- struck comment because ... it's too complicated to explain. Lesion (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 9 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 09:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Kwartet

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

references give no indication band is at all notable. (the refs are a really poor collection of press releases and info on an almost completely unrelated artist) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this group to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 15:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Can't find any reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:11, 8 September 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (banter) @ 22:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of European road signs

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

I don't think it's of any use to anyone. It's a showroom, not an article.If we keep this article, we might create an article named "Ikea [name of place]" and have people take pictures of the furnitue there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Puntaalpo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 7 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nominator does not provide a policy-based reason for deletion. WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL. No prejudice against renomination with an actual rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that a good case can be made for saying that the present structure of the article is useful to those who wanted to compare road signs. As Bushranger says, that is not a valid rationale for deletion and AfD is not for improving articles. Roadsign articles in WP are problematic and often inadequately sourced because the technical background to the rationale for countries adopting their own variant is frequently not readily accessible and requires good language knowledge. But the article can develop - it is very likely that there has been a technical study published on this topic. --AJHingston (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - In addition to The Bushranger's policy-based arguments, I can tell you this article WAS useful: It shows the legitimacy of an image in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone article bearing a stop sign in English. Even though one might think that would be inappropriate in Ukraine (not even the right alphabet, just for starters), this article shows that except for fonts, stop signs in Ukraine (and most of Europe) look just like they do in the U.S. --RBBrittain (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per Bushranger and RBBrittain. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Fry1989 ^eh? 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --Dch (talk) 11:35, 8 September 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 HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry#In_2013. There is consensus that she is not notable per BLP1E. There is no consensus whether the article should be redirected or merged and redirected. By default, I replace it by a redirect, whoever wants to use the info is welcome to merge it using the page history.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Bay (pornographic actress)

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

This article is about a pornographic actress who I believe fails WP:PORNBIO and is really known only for getting infected with HIV. While the repercussions of the HIV outbreak probably merit a mention in HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry, I believe that this article runs afoul of BLP guidelines. The Call of Cthulhu (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013 per BLP1E principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013.Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument. Finnegas (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HIV/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry#In_2013. Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i had not been able to find an article which this content might go in. the target article proposed is logical, and i had not found it prior to creating my article. im neutral on the merge/redirect, but can easily see the logic in it, with BLP1E, while not an ironclad rule on its face, obviously to be considered.(mercurywoodrose)99.14.218.225 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-personal content to HIV/AIDS in the pornographic film industry#In 2013. then delete original article without redirect. This is, as argued above, really about the HIV outbreak, not the person. We should not leave a redirect in this case, on WP:BLP1E principles: there is no reason to name patients in this sort of article, unless there is particular notability and relevance, which there is not in this case. -- The Anome (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only issue that I have with the above arguments is that it is this person here that caused the outbreak in question, and that fact has already been covered by numerous mainstream media sources, like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, ABC News, etc. I see no reason to leave out the relevant info (from the article under consideration here) from the proposed merge target article, which I see that you've already pre-emptively edited. Guy1890 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you want to use the name in that article, it's up to you, but the words "caused the outbreak" are not at all helpful. This sort of thing is exactly why BLP1E exists. -- The Anome (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Cameron was also featured in the first season of Tool Academy so this is not a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't believe that appearing as a participant on a reality TV show is sufficient to contribute to meeting the notability criteria: she was in the show, the show was not principally about her, which is what is required by WP:N. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 13 September 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) 03:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Detroit City FC season

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

FAils WP:GNG. Article a season page of an American team soccer team playing in the fourth-tier (appears to be an amateur league according to this link), comprising only of a series of scores and stats. Season pages for this level are overkill. Ravendrop 04:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS no indication that there is any wider coverage to support GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, fails GNG and NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:58, 7 September 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 Jefferson Boulevard#Little New Orleans. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little new orleans

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

No sources to back content up, perhaps a notability issue Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 03:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source cited = The Free People of Color of New Orleans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akh2103 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a "source" in the Wikipedia sense - see WP:REF. It might accurately describe where you found the information but we would need more that a single mention in a single book to satisfy our inclusion guidelines. Stalwart111 06:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Jefferson Boulevard (as suggested below) ~~Delete~~ - I couldn't find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources nor anything that recognised the location as a notable place. Stalwart111 06:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jefferson_Boulevard#Little_New_Orleans. I could find evidence to where this existed, but the problem here is that the coverage is all fairly minor in scope. It's all brief 1-2 sentence mentions here and there. There is not really anything out there to show that this merits an entry along the lines of Little Tokyo, Los Angeles, for example. It's a shame that there isn't any true in-depth coverage because this sounds like it would be fascinating, but we aren't here to make up the difference. For now I'd say that there's merit in merging some of the information into the main article for Jefferson and just redirecting there. On a side note, I removed the mention of The Free People of Color of New Orleans because I need the page number and the other information to have a proper cite. With that info missing and the same information found on other sources, I just went ahead and removed it. It can be re-added with the full information (page number, ISBN, etc), but the big issue is that the mention is just as brief as the ones I found. If anyone wants to write about this and get it published through some of the scholarly channels, then we can start looking at creating a full article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found another mention in an article about the Creole people in LA, but it was again just a brief mention in general. This has to be one of the more frustrating AfDs I've tried to find sources for, as I really wish we could write more about this but the sourcing and basic material just isn't out there. On a side note, I've added the material to Jefferson_Boulevard#Little_New_Orleans. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's certainly interesting, it just doesn't seem to be notable. But your merger suggestion seems sensible - have changed my own note. Stalwart111 09:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jefferson Boulevard#Little New Orleans. Per source availability, doesn't appear to qualify for a standalone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:25, 7 September 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 deleted due to no claim of importance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick fontanilla jacob

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

Non notable author, content not encyclopedic, possible COI Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also was claimed by a copyright infringement, but I suspect subject wrote the original text so that reason does not hold water. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:02, 7 September 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 per CSD:A7. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bluebubblepop

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

No sources cited, no notability, and not really detailed enough to create a substantial article. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7; No stated indication of importance for this web content. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:24, 7 September 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 Agoraphobic Nosebleed. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agoraphobic Nosebleed / Kill the Client

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

non-notable split EP Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band's article. There doesn't seem to be enough here to justify an article on just the EP. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:16, 6 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band per UltraExactZZ, not enough coverage to merit a stand-alone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RDM Corporation

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

No evidence of notability (and searching just finds press releases). Presently painfully-obviously constructed by COI editor. Could be stubified, I suppose. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main section of the article was a WP:COPYVIO from this. I have removed it, so it now has a much simpler lead section (and doesn't use words like "we" and "our"). AllyD (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Among the most ridiculous things on the internet is PR Newswire attempting to charge me $4.95 for a copy of a ten year old press release about this outfit. Note: I did not pay. This is the sort of worthless garbage coughed up when attempting to find coverage in reliable sources of this check digitizing company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a fairly old company and that makes the article somewhat notable. But doesn't have any sources. The first one is invalid, the second points to financial ranking site. Very weak keep. scope_creep talk 18:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Extremely old businesses may be notable at least in part when reliable sources discuss the great age of the company in the context of significant coverage. This company has been around since 1987, which is not that old, really. There are many non-notable companies who have been in business much longer. There are also much newer companies that are notable. The deciding factor is significant coverage in reliable sources. Where is it for this company? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking broad WP:SIGCOV. The two references consist of a dead link and a list draw up by a business consultancy. It should not have been hard to find references for a company having notability.Blue Riband► 03:29, 7 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej Properties Limited

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

Does not meet WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge with Godrej_Group. This article appears to be written like an advertisement. The company is quite notable. If someone can find more reliable sources then it should be kept. SmackoVector (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep As the article currently stands, it doesn't read like an advertisement, although it could do with rewriting and expansion. That being said, it's a highly notable company by any standards, and the nom would have discovered that had s/he spent ten seconds with Google. Mandalini (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments : Could you please explain why it is highly notable company by any standards. Please go through with the wiki policy as I mentioned that WP:COMPANY. There no depth coverage till now. - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, ten seconds with Google brings up extended coverage in multiple major secondary sources. Here we have the Hindu; the Economic Times; CNBC; the Hindustan Times; the Economic Standard. Here's Business Today. According to Reuters, as of March 31, 2012, the company was developing 77 million square feet of real estate through projects in 12 cities across India. Bloomberg calls it the fourth-biggest developer in India. What, pray tell, makes you think it's *not* notable? Mandalini (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thick you have to go through to WP:ORGDEPTH. All links said company's investment and product not about "Significant coverage" the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not true. This and this are dedicated analyses of a recent capital raise on the part of the company, including quoted remarks by the company's managing director, about a new attempt to raise money, and this is a report on a regulator's activity with regard to the attempted raise. Both are dedicated articles about the company, as opposed to cursory mentions of something or other, like this. Here's another dedicated article about the company's activities. Mandalini (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jayanta Nath. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the coverage in reliable sources identified here by Mandalini. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no questioned about reliable sources, All sources are reliable. I am concern about Significant coverage the company.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confident that the full range of sources brought forth in this debate amount to significant coverage. This is not a small or medium sized company, and saying so shows a lack of familiarity with small business, which is my career. It is the fourth largest company of its type in India, with projects in 12 cities. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the fourth largest company of its type in India any reference?? And by the way "fourth largest company" is not the criteria of inclusion.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 07:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find in the text above, provided by Mandalini, a link to a Bloomberg News article verifying this fact. If it was the fourth largest manufacturer in India of brass plates decorated with imitation gemstones, that would not be a credible claim to notability. But fourth largest real estate developer is a credible claim of notability with regards to a country with well over a billion people, and the extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources uncovered by Mandalini seals the deal, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert article. It's a fairly small to medium sized construction company, house builder. I don't see any notability. Supposed references are very poor. Fails WP:COMPANY certianly. scope_creep talk 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As the sources given my Mandalini plus its on top for "Best companies to work for 2013" under Real Estate by Economic Times. Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 17:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Fangzhou

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

I see no WTA main draw entries, nor any victories in a $35,000+ tournament required for notability. Not notable for tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I She has competed in WTA main draw — 2013 Suzhou Ladies Open. This means that she meets the guidelines. pbr123

That is a WTA 125 tournament... the equivalent of the men's challenger tour. Sorry but per guidelines she needs to WIN one of those minor tournies, not just be in one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not competed in the main draw of a WTA tournament and doesn't WP:NTENNIS. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Fay

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

Non notable per WP:BIO. Article appears to just be promo. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject fails WP:GNG. Most content was added by Cwo2mdfay (talk · contribs) which appears, at least to me, as if CWO2 (Chief Warrant Officer 2) Michael Fay essentially wrote most of his own wikipedia article which is strongly discouraged (WP:COISELF/WP:AUTOBIO). The content that Cwo2mdfay did write lacks verifiability from reliable sources. — -dainomite 22:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and likely has a major COI as well. Intothat darkness 21:49, 10 September 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana National Science And Maths Quiz Winners

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

Unsourced list, Original Research as well Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There might be some merit to having an article on the actual contest since it's held at the national level, but I'm having trouble finding RS, but that might be due to a language barrier? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is an national level prize, and though your can't find entries on Google about it, doesn't make it WP:OR. It is likely to do with language differences. Since the Ghanaian generally take great pride in their education, unlike the west nations, it is likely to be a fairly prestigious prize. I would say let it sit until references come up. Certainly the Ghanaian Google has a number of entries about it, which could perhaps server as sources. scope_creep talk 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My big concern is that there's a big difference between having an article for a contest and having an article that's just a list of names of people who have won the contest. If it gets kept, it needs to be as an article about the contest itself, not a roster of people who have won. It's not really the norm to have an article about winners of a contest unless the contest has been so long running and so overwhelmingly prestigious that each yearly contest gains a lot of coverage. By this I mean that you'd get something along the lines of the Nobel Prize, the Golden Rooster Awards, and similar. Even if a contest is notable, there's not much merit in just having an article about the contest. Other than that, I would really like to see some sort of sourcing for this as well. We need to have at least a few sources that talk about this to really show notability. They don't have to necessarily be plastered all over Google News, but we need some sort of verification that this is as notable and prestigious in the country as you claim. We don't need a huge amount in this case, just some coverage. It doesn't have to be in English, mind you, but we do need something. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles-Redskins rivalry

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

I'm not doubting that a rivalry exists between the two teams but this article is poorly written, not sourced and it does not assert that a rivalry exists. Clecol99 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 31. Snotbot t • c » 09:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - no policy-based reason for deletion presented. A poorly written, unsourced article is not a reason for deletion. I've also cleaned up the messy nomination statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will assume in good faith that the nominator meant to assert a lack of notability, but notability is obvious: a longtime rivalry between two NFL teams that play in the same division, there's plenty potential material to develop this article; one might start with "Eagles-Redskins is a rivalry for the ages" (video) and the various book sources that come up on a GBooks search for <Eagles Redskins rivalry>. ~~Please note that the notice for this AfD on the article page still needs technical attention.~~ I think I fixed it. Dashes vs. hyphens! --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the book sources? Can you link them to me as the first few pages on Google books doesn't indicate anything about a rivalry between the two teams, some of which, including the vital Redskins Encyclopedia I do own. Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Xrt6L (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, WP:NOTAVOTE AFD is not a vote? Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR. Every time two teams play each other, any claims of "rivalry" comes up, especially in the local news media. That doesn't indicate that there is really a "rivalry" between the two teams. These kind of articles usually need much stronger sources to sustain having a Wikipedia article. Outside localized sources, sources that came up during the Redskins acquisition of Donovan McNabb, or trivial mentions I don't see the case here, probably because both teams peaks never overlapped with each other, and they aren't in the same division. Secret ^account 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eagles and Redskins do play in the same division. The rivalry doesn't have to be at the level of the Redskins and Cowboys to be a notable rivalry with substantial coverage. In addition to the "rivalry for the ages" report I noted above, Michael Richman, author of the aforementioned Redskins Encyclopedia, describes Redskins-Eagles as "a combustible rivalry . . . one of the oldest and most compelling duels in NFL history." [61] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:18, 4 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm surprised this hadn't been created earlier. I am also assuming good faith and having said that, there is a lot of history between these two teams. Over 150 meetings and they have been playing since 1934, there are a lot of great games between these two teams. There is definetly plenty of material in the archives to expand this article. Peetlesnumber1 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep personally I don't like rivalry articles. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Other than that, I see plentiful coverage to pass WP:GNG. Poorly written? WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condorcet-IRV

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

Delete. Original research. Re-post of deleted material. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Instant Runoff Voting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet-Hare Method. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Approval Instant Runoff Voting and Talk:Condorcet method/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condorcet Instant Runoff Voting. Markus Schulze 11:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per consensus established in previous AfDs. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:24, 14 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Freda

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

Non-notable town officer. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In Connecticut towns, the "first selectman" is the equivalent of mayor. North Haven is a suburban town with slightly over 24,000 population in the 2010 census. Is that significant enough to give him media visibility (i.e., independent sources)? A glance at Google shows at least some news interviews and such. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is coverage in a range of local sources, including the North Haven Patch, Connecticut Post-Chronicle, and the Connecticut Citizens Publishing Group (can't get the links to work for that last one). The lack of broader coverage is a bit disturbing, though. Do the notability policies say any about local vs. national coverage? Barring some policy I don't know about, this article seems to meet criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:08, 14 September 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. Once the strings have been cut from the marionettes, all that remains are well-founded arguments in favor of deletion as non-notable advertising with no encyclopedic coverage. bd2412 T 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Watches

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

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

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

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

Can't find sources to see it meets WP:ORG Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's a advertising article, which diminishes WP purpose. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep talk 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam; almost a candidate for G11 speedy. Absolutely nothing found at Google News Archive. I deleted a couple of spammy external links. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the page can be improved and revised w/ WP:NPOV content. I found a few references for this page that appear to be valid 3rd party sources:

1

2

Ktwestside (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last url says at the bottom "Sponsored by Bob’s Watches" - not a valid source. The Orange County Register is IMHO too local to be used. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with the comment below; The Orange County Register is an absolutely legitimate regional Newspaper. It was founded in 1905 & and has won several Pulitzer prizes; the author who took up the subject of Rolex Watches is a career journalist with well-established credentials: [62]

See The Orange County Register - Ktwestside (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review your sources more thoroughly. The OC Register isn't a local paper. It's the 19th largest paper in the country by circulation. They've won a Pulitzer Prize as well. Their mention is definitely notable for their size. Their circulation is 280,000. That's far beyond a "local" paper. I live in a small town with a local paper. The circulation is 10,000. Those numbers make it a local paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:POTENTIAL WP:NOTIMELIMIT Rolex is a subject that will always garner interest and have an audience; coupled with the unique platform of this company, I think there's solid reason to keep and/or save this page. Also, a search for valid sources produced this reference [63] Rodesywiki (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC) — Rodesywiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment That's a sales site so irrelevant to notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree with keeping this page. Strong points were made above that Rolex is indeed a subject most people will be interested in, and the page can definitely be improved to a point that no one will even consider deletion an option for it. I think deleting this page would be too hasty of a move, especially if it can be fixed up a little more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathron (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)— Cathron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I feel that if companies such as Microsoft can have wikipedia pages, then why not smaller companies such as Bob's Watches? MarieMayer (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — mariemayer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Because we have criteria for notability at WP:ORG, which starts by saying "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Everyone !voting here should read it. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because we expect organisation to fulfill the criteria at WP:ORG. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 6 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely a breach of WP:NOTPROMO and the sock/meat-spam above in addition to the WP:OSE arguments gives that game plan away. The suggestion that an enterprise like this gains notability from the Rolex watches they sell is a complete fallacy. That's like suggesting I'm notable because I had a Coke today. One piece of local news coverage isn't anywhere near enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Really a bit surprised this was re-listed given the total lack of policy value from "team keep". Stalwart111 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the fastest ways into getting an article deleted is to sock on an AfD nomination; in addition, sources largely fail WP:V. Falls well short of WP:ORG. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A firm going about its business, but not encyclopaedic. The Orange County Register article is the nearest to a WP:RS but inclusion in a feature article is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and to balance out the puppetfarm up there. I'm also surprised that this was relisted. Ansh6 6 6 07:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Indeed, looking back, the relisting was a bit unnecessary. I've requested closure at WP:AN/RFC. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Threads of Destiny

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

This is an unnotable fan film. References provided do not satisfy WP:GNG. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 5 criteria in the General notability guideline are not satisfied? And how would this newspaper article qualify? http://arkiv.mitti.se:4711/2009/14/haninge/MIHA20A20090331HAV1.pdf (If you don't know Swedish it can be translated by copying and pasting the text on Google Translate) DarkSapiens (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep per pushing up on WP:GNG and WP:NF. IE: [64] [65] [66] (and hopefully more though the assistance of Swedish Wikipedans). It's a fan film (well done one too) and we do not expect that such fan-cult-based works have the same level of coverage as do big-budget studio-financed highly-advertised blockbusters. We need consider though that cult status of the Star Wars series has resulted in a number of Star Wars fan film articles that serve the project and its readers. This appears to be one... and notable to Sweden with Swedish language sourcing should be notable enough for en.Wikipeia Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, doing similar source searches for other fan films with Wikipedia articles yield similar results (none in Google news in most cases, and I only tried the better known ones). Also, one must note that Threads of Destiny is still unreleased, and this has an impact on its current notability. If the page gets deleted and in a couple of months the number of sources talking about it increases tenfold (for example), will the work in Wikipedia have to be redone? DarkSapiens (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the available options is that this could be placed in the WP:INCUBATOR for a short time as more sources come forward. It could also be moved into a user workspace for a time. And if it is deleted, someone with the admin tools, can always undelete it when the topic receives more coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable per the sources provided by Schmidt. (Better link to #2: [67]). Those sources are all pretty old, though, so hopefully once the film is released some more recent coverage will pop up. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:16, 14 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Shy

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. All awards/noms are scene related. All GNews and GBooks hits are spurious or trivial. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and PORNBIO as the nominator states. My own search for non-trivial reliable source coverage yielded only a brief mention in an AVN article that looks very much like a press release. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 14 September 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Sports

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

A case of WP:NOTPROMOTION. MicroX (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Samsung has been a major sponsor of teams in a wide variety of sports for at least 35 years. This book devotes at least four pages to that program, especially the company's recent involvement in the Olympic Games. Here's another book that also devotes four pages to the topic.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The concept of Samsung's sponsorship of sport teams and athletic events is notable, but this article is barely about that. In fact, the article is somewhat confusing... the lede says that Samsung Sports is a multi-sport club, but doesn't state at all which parts of a multi-sport club this one has. The rest of the article just lists teams that Samsung sponsors. An article on Samsung's sports marketing strategy (using the sources found by Cullen) would be interesting (or expansion of the existing Samsung article using this material). But this article isn't about that - despite its title - and this article should be deleted. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:09, 6 September 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources found by Cullen establish notability. If the article is poorly written, it should be rewritten, not deleted. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:04, 14 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOTI Inc.

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not think that the references here show notability. It just escapes speedy A7, and although I deleted a previous version as G11, I think this needs a discussion. See the refs suggested at AfD1. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article by James Heary describes this firm as having over 10,000 software users "including a healthy dose of fortune 500 companies" [68] It is a blog posting, so I haven't added it into the article, though it may pass as a bylined piece by a recognised journalist. AllyD (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—They've got a very good PR person: mentions in CMSWire press release, Intermec, Cult of Mac, E-week, and Brighthand, but these are effectively press releases. Also an interview in Network World. To put this in perspective, ZDnet wrote an actual article listing their top-10 MDM solutions and SOTI didn't make the cut (although their PR person is earning their money in the article comments). In short, despite the pile of links there's very little out here that doesn't originate with the company. Given a handful of independent citations and I think this article gets over the line, but with what I have in front of me this doesn't (in my opinion) meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. IMO trade-magazine articles are not enough. See the exclusion of "media of limited interest and circulation" in WP:CORPDEPTH. Let's leave SOTI out of Wikipedia until we see significant coverage in major mainstream sources such as The New York Times and the print version of BusinessWeek. Salting would be wise since the article has been repeatedly recreated. If the creator wants to create it again, they should first reread WP:42, then they should present their sources to the AfD-closing administrator. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:01, 11 September 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 Withdrawn - Should've done a bit more research before presuming & nominating. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMK Group

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

non notable bus company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail those guidelines when there's a in-depth source about the company in the article? --Oakshade (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no in-depth source whatsoever - Ref 1 doesn't work, & at the time time of nomming Ref 2 didn't work neither ..., Anyway part from 2 I've found nothing for notability ...- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just because you can't see the reference linked from the article, you presumed it wasn't an acceptable one to pass WP:GNG?--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Firstly this AfD is flawed as the nom based there assessment that this failed WP:GNG due to their presumption that one of the sources in the article wasn't satisfactory as it was a dead link. WP:AFD and WP:GNG state very clearly that if sources exist but are not available online or yet placed in the article, that is not a bases for AfD. The source that the nom said was a "dead link" is here. It even has a Bloomberg Businessweek profile. [69]--Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury & District

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

non notable bus company, Fails WP:GNG & WP:CORP -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -Davey2010T 00:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If kept the article should be Newbury & District Ltd, but the article is essentially a list of bus routes at Newbury. We ddi a major cull on those a couple of months back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 10 September 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, -Davey2010T 01:08, 15 September 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.

[1] Kwok, Roberta (2013). "Research impact: Altmetrics make their mark". Nature. 500 (7463): 491–3. doi:10.1038/nj7463-491a. PMID 23977678.

[1]